European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
 - Committee (7th Day)

Relevant documents: 12th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee, 9th Report from the Constitution Committee

  
Clause 9: Implementing the withdrawal agreement

Amendment 142

Moved by Lord Monks
142: Clause 9, page 7, line 7, after “to” insert “—(a) approval by both Houses of Parliament of a mandate for negotiations about the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the EU; and(b) ”

Lord Monks: My Lords, Amendment 142 is very ambitious and I am grateful to my co-signatories for their support. It is designed to assert the role of Parliament in the approach that the UK Government adopt to the future relationship of the UK with the EU. At the moment, where does Parliament stand on this vital future relationship? It has won the very welcome right to have a meaningful vote on any final deal that emerges from the talks, but it is conspicuously silent on the approach that the Government are taking to the talks on our future relationship. The amendment—noble Lords will see why I term it “ambitious”—is designed to claim the right of Parliament to have a meaningful vote as soon as possible on that approach, and, in effect, to give a mandate to the UK’s negotiators on the lines to follow.
Critics may justly say, “You’re a bit late; the talks are already starting”. Indeed, it is true that we are a bit late in addressing this question. But it was only 10 days ago that the Prime Minister gave her Mansion House speech, and only a couple of weeks since the Cabinet meeting at Chequers that managed to patch up at least some elements of a common position to take to the talks—and, I would guess more importantly, managed to pacify different wings of the Conservative Party. Many of us consider the position adopted to be unrealistic, wishful thinking and a pick and choose à la carte menu of what we like and what we reject. I fear that it is a fantasy to think that it will get anything other than short shrift in the forthcoming talks.
Other critics of this proposal might say that for Parliament to establish a mandate is unconstitutional, and might quote the convention that the Government cannot be instructed in how to conduct themselves when they are involved in international negotiations. But in fact it would not be unprecedented in recent times, because Parliament stepped in and intervened   powerfully on certain occasions in recent years. In 2003 the Government sought a mandate for military intervention in Iraq, and more recently Parliament refused to sanction military action in Syria.
The decision on our future relationship with the EU us just as momentous as a declaration of war. So, to coin a phrase, it is time to take back control. “Take back control” was a powerful slogan in the referendum campaign. It should be equally powerful in this House and the other place now. Our future relationship with the EU is too important for us in Parliament, especially those in the other place, to play the part of spectator: too important for jobs, too important for prosperity, too important for peace, too important in relation to the Irish border question, too important for our future dealings with Russia—an issue that is very much in the headlines and on the front pages today.
As an aside, the importance of a close relationship with the EU is underlined by the present rupture with Russia. If economic sanctions are to be ramped up, it would be necessary for the EU to be involved because the EU is by far Russia’s biggest trading partner—as, of course, it is ours. The uncertain response so far of the United States to the Salisbury outrage contrasts with the solidarity from the EU and underlines the need for us to maintain a close and warm relationship with it.
Frankly, I do not know where a meaningful vote in Parliament on a mandate would lead. The position of the Front Benches would no doubt be key, as it was in the vote on triggering Article 50. It is possible that a vote could endorse the Government’s position, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mansion House speech: ruling out membership of the single market, the customs union and any role for the European Court of Justice. That could happen—or a meaningful vote could perhaps lead to an insistence on a clean, sharp break and a switch to trade on WTO grounds. Or it could, as I would certainly prefer, aim for the UK to stay in the European Economic Area, perhaps via membership of a strengthened EFTA, thus retaining membership of the single market and the customs union. That would make us more than just a mere rule-taker. It is not an ideal position, but I believe it to be the best of the options available.
Additionally, I would favour using our existing powers—as, for example, do Belgium and Germany—to exert more control on migration. I also draw the attention of the Committee to new proposals from Brussels to ensure that the terms of employment of migrant posted workers do not undercut those of resident workers. We could have done with that three years ago.
Whatever the outcome of a meaningful vote on a mandate, Parliament would have spoken on the future relationship and not left these crucial matters solely in the fumbling hands of the Cabinet. After such a vote, it would be incumbent on all of us to get behind the decision, for better or for worse, and to make it work for both the UK and the EU. My message to this House and the other place is: assert yourselves. Do your democratic duty. Uphold the sovereignty of this Parliament before it is too late to do so.
Amendment 143 (to Amendment 142) not moved.

Amendment 144 (to Amendment 142)

Moved by Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
144: Clause 9, in paragraph (a), after “EU” insert “, including a requirement to seek ongoing mutual recognition of professional qualifications”

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Monks. I support the fundamental aim of Amendment 142 that Parliament should be empowered to determine the mandate for the Government to follow in the talks about the UK’s future relations with the EU.
Amendment 144 seeks to place a requirement on HMG to secure mutual recognition of professional qualifications. The Government have agreed to seek to protect the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK nationals in the EU under the withdrawal agreement. This includes the continued recognition of professional qualifications. However, the withdrawal agreement is a draft agreement and still needs to be agreed with the EU 27 and then negotiated with the UK. The final withdrawal deal will make reference to the framework for our future relationship with the EU, which is why it is important that mutual recognition of professional qualifications, which I will refer to as MRPQ, is included. The amendment is about bringing more certainty to British and EU citizens, to businesses and to services about how they can operate in future.
I should like to outline why MRPQ is important to a range of professions and what the consequences would be for those professions if we did not have an agreement in place. The professional business sector generates a huge amount of wealth and jobs for both the UK and the EU, and the current system of mutual recognition of professional qualifications within the sector allows for a great deal of flexibility and freedom. For example, an architect who studied and qualified in France can work on a project in Rome and then establish his own practice in Birmingham. Lawyers who qualified in the UK can move between the UK and Belgium, providing advice to clients in Brussels on both English corporate and finance law and EU competition law, and there is no need for these individuals to prove that their qualifications meet local standards. UK auditors can take part in audits in other member states, although they cannot sign off an audit report in that state unless they have taken an additional aptitude test.
As I have highlighted, MRPQ is closely linked to both the ability to provide the services in the first place and the ability of providers to relocate without having to meet onerous immigration requirements. It is also needed for UK businesses to remain competitive and to attract the best staff for their operations. It is also worth noting that mutual recognition applies to UK schools of professional qualifications, which are highly respected internationally and which recruit a significant number of students from the EU.
In healthcare, we know that the NHS relies heavily on EU nationals to help fill the gaps in the workforce, and MRPQ helps to enable this. Figures show that  5.6% of NHS staff in England are nationals of other EU countries—just under 62,000 staff. Seven per cent of nurses, 21,237, and 10% of doctors, nearly 11,000, in England are EU nationals, due to the freedom of movement on qualifications.
What would be the consequences if we did not have any appropriate agreements for MRPQ? If none were in place, we would face having to renegotiate agreements country by country for some professions. With no agreement, recognition could be governed by different local regulations, forcing some professionals in certain jurisdictions to requalify from scratch or to leave the profession altogether. The process of requalification of professionals would become more onerous, expensive and, in some cases, quite unfeasible. Without an agreement, we would risk losing and being unable to attract talented workers from the EU, businesses may become less competitive and risk losing money and our UK schools of professional qualifications would certainly be negatively impacted.
I should like quickly to highlight some consequences for some specific professional groups. First, we know that 25% of architects working in the UK are from the EU. The Royal Institute of British Architects has outlined how that the risk of losing access to talents and skills from the EU, combined with the risk of losing access to the EU single market in a no-deal scenario, could reduce exports by £73 million a year— 15% of our total exports.
Without an MRPQ agreement, UK lawyers may need to retrain from scratch if they want to gain a home state legal qualification in some jurisdictions. This would mean that there would be 31 different routes for EU, EEA and Swiss jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions have significant barriers to requalification. For example, in Greece, a solicitor from England and Wales would have to take a Greek language test and be a Greek national to requalify. Similarly in France and Spain, only EEA nationals may requalify as Spanish or French lawyers respectively. In many jurisdictions, it is unclear whether that those who have trained as lawyers via a graduate diploma in law would be classed as having a law degree. This could affect an individual’s route to requalification. The same problems apply to auditors in many respects, and the same difficulties can apply to accountants.
I come back to healthcare professionals. Without MRPQ, there is a risk of there being additional barriers for EU staff to work in the NHS. We are already encountering some difficulties without such changes in the NHS and we must be concerned about our ability to keep the service working properly if we cannot get the appropriately qualified staff. No move on this front could discourage recruitment, which could put patient safety and services at risk.
Overall, I am sure we all agree that the potential consequences of no agreement on MRPQ are worrying not only for the professional groups I have mentioned but for the UK economy generally. I have outlined the extent to which UK and EU businesses and services currently rely on MRPQ. I have also highlighted some of the potentially serious consequences if we do not have an agreement. I am conscious that the Government are fully aware of the need for this to be agreed—the  Prime Minister made reference to it in her Commons Statement on 5 March, which was good news. Given that, I can see no reason why the Minister should not accept this amendment today. It would not only be welcomed by the professional groups concerned, which strongly support it, but would be good for the country. I beg to move.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Monks in his excellent introduction and other noble Lords with amendments in this group, which contains Amendment 145 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Judd.
My amendment requires Her Majesty’s Government, in partnership with Parliament, as my noble friend Lord Monks would put it, to seek ongoing reciprocal arrangements in the field of consumer law. The consequence of this not happening would be consumer chaos in this country. It is a modest request, in the context that UK consumers are key to the prosperity of our country and integral to the economy. As we know, every month consumers spend £100 billion in the UK, and in doing so support UK businesses, manufacturers and employees. It is therefore vital that this Bill protects the rights of consumers into the future.
The Bill as it stands reveals the gaps left by the Charter of Fundamental Rights not being part of domestic law on or after exit day. One important gaping gap relates to Article 38 of the charter: the right to a high level of consumer protection. In the launch of its consumer charter for Brexit, which I attended this morning, the leading consumer body Which? called on government to maintain and enhance Britain’s vital consumer rights and standards, stating that those rights should be at the heart of the Brexit negotiations—negotiations of which, as my noble friend Lord Monks has said, we as a Parliament are at present spectators. We must ensure that Parliament is no longer a bystander.
Government reassurance is long overdue when it comes to consumer concerns about the uncertainty, risk and disruption of the Brexit process and the sheer lack of information coming out on areas such as food safety, energy bills, travel rights, the validation of aeroplane safety—as the representative from ABTA reminded us at the Which? launch this morning—and roaming charges. How will the Minister go about responding to those consumer concerns? What is his response to the list of consumer priorities that were set out this morning, such as the need to maintain the UK’s world-leading consumer rights framework? The consumer framework in this country is very much based on local government and on trading standards—and I am very proud to be a vice-president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute. The lack of resources to local government questions the Government’s insistence that, post Brexit, they will lead a race to the top in consumer rights in this country, given that the consumer framework is so heavily based on a local government framework.
Ensuring that we maintain and incentivise food quality and safety standards is another priority, as is maintaining the supply of affordable energy. Monitoring  and maintaining access to the EU’s common aviation area to protect flight choice and suppress travel costs are also priorities. Further priorities include ensuring that reciprocal rights are maintained, such as in the field of healthcare and the European Health Insurance Card, which is used by nearly 250,000 UK citizens every year; and protecting mobile roaming in Europe. All these are urgent priorities for UK consumers which I do not believe the Government have really focused on and addressed so far.
What strategy have the Government in place to maintain reciprocal rights for consumers? If the Government are unable to secure a deal, for instance on aviation post Brexit, what will happen to all those passengers who are already booking holidays beyond 29 March 2019? What happens to their rights to holiday refunds or to compensation? What Government messages have been communicated to people about travel uncertainty beyond Brexit? Both Lufthansa and Ryanair have recently warned that UK holidaymakers could face flight disruption as a result of Brexit.
Surely it should not be left to individual travel companies, who themselves are unclear as to what a post-Brexit scenario will look like and who, not unnaturally, are looking themselves to their own interests in these uncertain times. For instance, according to Which? this morning, Thomas Cook has changed its terms and conditions to state explicitly that it will not provide compensation and will also not reimburse expenses or cover losses if it has to change bookings, which could occur in the event of airspace closures. Thomas Cook’s Brexit clause places airspace closure—

Lord Green of Deddington: Is the noble Baroness aware that we are in this situation, which I agree is a serious one, because the European Union has declined to discuss any of these issues until there is an actual treaty dealing with the rights of EU citizens in the UK? That is the reason that none of this has been touched—and I agree that it is a very serious matter for many people.

Baroness Crawley: I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. We have said from the start that UK citizens’ rights and the rights of EU citizens in our own country should never have been used as a bargaining chip. We have said right from the start, particularly on these Benches, that that should have been sorted out even before negotiations began.
As I was saying, the Thomas Cook Brexit clause places airspace closure as a potential scenario alongside natural disasters. We know how they feel. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute welcomes the Government’s aim in the Bill to transfer all directly applicable EU law to ensure that there are no fewer protections on the day we leave the EU. However, it remains concerned that regulations and networks that require reciprocal action and co-operation from remaining EU states, as my noble friend Lord Brooke said, will not be easy to retain unilaterally. It offered the examples of the RAPEX system for EU product safety risks, the online dispute resolution platform and the consumer protection co-operation regulation that allows for cross-border enforcement of rogue trader practices.
Divergence from the current system of rules, regulations and protections offered by the EU single market inevitably brings uncertainty and costs to businesses and consumers. The Prime Minister said as much last week. UK consumers need to be at the heart of these ongoing negotiations and need certainty that their protections will not be diminished, that rogue trading practices emanating from within the EU will be tackled and that they can enforce their rights in cross-border transactions. What is the Government’s strategy for consumers post Brexit and will the Government accept that these amendments bring greater clarity and safety to consumers?
Finally, what is plan B if consumers are not able to see beyond next week’s transition agreement? One of the issues that came up again and again with consumer bodies that came to speak to us was what happens if next week we do not get a transition agreement. Many of them are already making plans. Many of them have made their plans. They need a plan B. What plans are there for collaboration post Brexit to ensure that standards of outcomes for consumers will be there when UK and EU law diverge?

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: My Lords, Amendment 146 is an amendment to the one just moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, which I support. I speak on behalf of and will use the words of my noble friend Lord Puttnam, who cannot be here today as he is suffering from flu. I am sure your Lordships will want to send him good wishes for a speedy recovery.
I know that my noble friend is very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, and my noble friend Lord Judd for signing his amendment, and I look forward to their speeches.
Our creative industries have emerged as one of UK plc’s great success stories of recent decades. According to the latest figures, the UK’s creative industries represented nearly 4% of the UK’s gross value added in 1997. In the past 10 years this has increased by a massive 44.8% to the point where they now contribute £91.8 billion to the UK economy. But, just as importantly, the creative industries have become one of the instruments of soft power through which the UK has helped to shape ideas and thinking across Europe and the world.
Many of the policies developed by the EU, and warmly supported by the UK, have helped to grow our creative industries. I will leave it to others to talk about intellectual property, which is the basis of the creative sector, but I will give one example from the EU framework. It allows UK designers to register their designs and trademarks once in a single application that covers the entire EU and, like the recently established Unified Patent Court, provides an effective and efficient way of defending their IP.
Our creative industries cover a fairly wide range of subsectors, so let us take the example of cross-border broadcasters based in this country. The UK is Europe’s leading international hub for global media groups. It is home to more television channels than any other EU country. According to the Commercial Broadcasters Association, around 1,400 channels are based here,  representing more than a third of all EU broadcasting. Over half the channels licensed in the UK broadcast direct to overseas countries. These channels employ thousands of people in this country and one in 10 jobs in the television sector is related, wholly or in part, to the presence of channels that broadcast outwith the UK.
They currently invest more than £1 billion a year in wages, overheads and technology, helping to ensure that the UK broadcasting sector has the critical mass to compete on the global stage. But the reason this works as well as it does—and it does work well—is that when the UK regulator Ofcom grants a company based in the UK a broadcasting licence, that licence, under EU law, has to be recognised by every other EU member state without further checks or review.
So, what happens when we leave? Unless we can reach a reciprocal agreement with the EU, this privileged position will be lost forever, along with the investment and jobs that go with it. It is not just the jobs at the broadcasters themselves—we should think of the value chain and the production hubs that have sprung up around them, helping to make the UK the leading centre for the audio-visual industry in Europe and, by a country mile, the most significant outside the US.
The scenario I describe and the economic minefield it represents are not a far-off prospect. There is a clear and present danger. Last week, as reported in the press today, a group of senior officials from Ireland’s audio-visual regulator was in London, pitching to the major broadcasters the advantages of moving to Dublin. Two weeks from now the President of Estonia, together with her Minister of Culture, will be in London on a similar mission. Others, from Holland, Luxembourg and elsewhere are planning to follow. Without some form of reciprocal agreement with the remaining EU member states, our creative and cultural sectors will undoubtedly suffer irreversible economic and cultural damage.
There is more. Research undertaken by Oxera for the British Film Institute indicates that the proposed diminution of freedom of movement will erode our available pool of talent. This could lead to a decrease of 5% to 6% in the volume of screen sector content made in the UK, along with the loss of some 5,000 jobs. The same research shows that the no deal scenario, under which we fall back on WTO rules, would lead to 14,000 job losses.
However, the freedom of movement challenge is even greater than that. Let us reflect for a moment on the difficulties that orchestras, rock bands, actors and every kind of creative person, whether from the UK or the EU, may have in crossing borders after we become a third country. Then add in the issue of moving equipment between two very different jurisdictions. Lorries queueing at Dover, Harwich and Holyhead will be stuffed not just with food and electrical goods but with musical instruments, sophisticated camera equipment and the physical goods that even in this digital age enable people across the UK and Europe to enjoy the very best of our common European culture.
We do not want to return to the era of the carnet, when an enormous amount of paperwork was required simply to move a film camera from London to Paris or  Rome. Unless we can wrap a reciprocal agreement around our creative industries, we risk returning to those dark days of zero growth, little confidence and minimal opportunity.
The people who will suffer as a consequence are not just those who work in the creative industries; audiences across the UK will no longer be able to enjoy to anything like the same extent performances by orchestras, theatre companies, dancers, musicians and poets from across Europe. They will not be able freely to access the fruits of a common European culture—a culture that every person in this country under the age of 40 has taken entirely for granted.
The case for remaining in the EU is economic, but it is also cultural and historical. More than 50 years of peace, prosperity and culture exist and must not be forgotten. This is why we need to secure an agreement with the EU that underpins the future of our cultural industries, to the benefit of both our citizens and our economy.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am pleased to announce that this is the last speech I shall make in Committee on the Bill.

Shame.

Lord Rooker: Well, when tempers got a bit frayed on Monday evening, I thought, “Well, I’ll make the next one my last one, so I don’t upset anybody even more”. It is my fourth but it will be my longest. I also support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Monks.
I cannot understand why—as one of my noble friends asked on Monday—after the December agreements the UK Government did not do exactly what the EU did and set out a legal document. It looked as though it was the EU’s job to do that but, when you read about it, you found out that it was not. The EU took the view that it would put that agreement into a legal form; we could have done exactly the same but we chose not to. In some ways, to put it at its crudest, I would rather have Monsieur Barnier looking after my interests than the amateurs representing the UK at the present time. It is a really serious issue that we have come to.
I want to raise food standards and have a couple of questions. First, will the UK remain a member of RASFF, the rapid alert system for food and feed? Its members are the Commission, the European Food Safety Authority and the EEA only. There is a legal basis for it; it started only in the late 1970s; it did not exist before we joined the EU and it has been evolving since then. It is a 24/7 system for exchanging information on serious risks detected in food and feed. It is a very simple system with clearly identifiable points.
The latest report on RASFF is from 2016. There were 2,993 notices issued—eight a day—all across Europe to the ports and authorities dealing with these issues. The system keeps people safe and it is run by the EU. You cannot be half in and half out of getting the notifications, or issuing your own.
When I was in government I discovered, much to my surprise, that only two departments run a 24/7 system: one is the Ministry of Defence, for obvious reasons,   and the other is Defra. I would like to think that that is still the case, because they are the only two. Part of the reason is these notifications and other issues relating to food.
Research done by the Food Standards Agency for the balance of competences review when I was there back in 2013-14 showed that many people did not feel protected, but the thing that really stuck out when I was re-reading the research report the other day was that 80% of people in the UK did not know that the EU was responsible for the majority of food and feed laws in the UK. Part of the reason for that, of course, is politicians in Brussels masquerading as lying journalists telling falsehoods about the EU over three or four decades—so it was never really understand who was responsible for what.
The UK is a big player in the RASFF system. We are in the top 10 of notifying countries. In 2016 we notified on 79 occasions regarding salmonella and aflatoxins. The countries of origin that are reported most on the system are Turkey, Spain, Iran, China, the United States, India and Egypt, on matters relating to fruit and vegetables, nuts, herbs and spices, and fish and fish products. It is a 24/7 rapid-alert system for what is discovered at ports of entry and in manufacturing.
What are we talking about in terms of food law and what the EU does? I will go through the list. First are the general principles of food law, including traceability and incident reporting; the principle of control on farm to fork; and the establishment of the European Food Safety Authority. Then there are hygiene rules from the farm to the point of sale; official feed controls; and checking out abattoirs each time they are working, 24 hours a day—if there is no vet there, they cannot open. There are massive issues relating to feed safety. I spoke briefly about it the other night, so I will not repeat what I said then. One-third of the land that we use is growing feed; 85% of EU compound feed is now GM or GM-derived material; two-thirds of feed is produced by farmers; there are 4,000 feed mills in the EU; 500 million tonnes are needed each year; and there are serious issues with dioxins and PCBs. Feed safety is crucial. The animals cannot read the labels. We have to do it for them. We have to check this because the reality is that that feed becomes our food. We have to make sure that pathogens and other problems are not passed on through that food chain into the human one.
There are regulations on hygiene practices. On treatment of contaminants in food, there is an EU-wide framework for maximum levels of certain contaminants to protect public health. Food additives are controlled on an EU basis, as are flavourings. If you visit the ports of entry for food, as I did both as a Minister at Defra and with the FSA, you will find bonded warehouses of things that have been put on one side. Something might look like the product, will be labelled as it, might even smell like it, but it damn well is not the product. The crooked chemists have been to work to try to put filth through the system to cut corners and costs. These are massive issues that we need protection from. Flavourings are an area where corners can be cut. Smoke flavouring, food enzymes and extraction solvents used in the production process are controlled throughout.
Another key EU food standards issue is food contact materials. We cannot put food in any old pack. It might look like a cardboard box, but it has to be one that does not contaminate the food with whatever is in the cardboard, paper or printing. Because of trade issues, it is absolutely fundamental that these matters are dealt with on an EU-wide basis and contact materials are crucial. There are regulations about ionising radiation. I will not frighten people, but we do eat irradiated food, like herbs, though this is not an issue. Novel food regulations relate to food production and foods that have never been used in the EU before. When someone invents a new product or process, it has to go through these regulations. This is crucial because it was not done across the EU before. GM comes under that heading, but so do other products. On quick-frozen foodstuffs for human consumption, rules are laid down for the speed of freezing, the packaging, labelling and inspection. These are fundamental to protecting trade and people. There are general rules on food labelling. One might want to complain about labels, but they are much more accepted and accurate than they ever were. I can find faults with them, but they work across Europe.
Beef and beef products are specially labelled—the only meat for which there are rules across Europe. We are the country that gave the world BSE. We do not have a lot to boast about. We know more about it than anybody else because our scientists did more work on it, but the fact is that we gave it to the world and we have to make sure that we keep the situation safe. Standards are laid down, across the piece, for bottled waters, soluble coffee products, cocoa and chocolate products, and fishery and agriculture products. There is a lot of money to be made selling expensive honey that is not actually that, so it has to be tested. You only have to look at the huge price range: the really expensive honey costs a fortune and there are people out there who want to do things that they should not. There are regulations for the labelling of sugars and fruit juices. The stuff that chemists have tried to produce in the past—I have seen it—looks like orange juice, smells like it and almost tastes like it, but laboratory studies have shown that it certainly is not orange juice. The EU lays down the rules on other products: jams and marmalades, dehydrated milk products—a fundamental one—spreadable fats and oils, which are used in massive numbers of food products. We do not invent the rules; it is done for our safety and the public interest. Natural mineral waters are also on the list.
That was just a run-through of about 25 regulations and what they cover. There is an idea that the EU does not involve us and is no good at all, but we are kept safe by those rules and regulations. We are kept safe by notification systems working instantly across the whole of Europe and the EEA when untoward things are found. Basically, we should just keep them. What is more, the Minister for Food and Rural Affairs also thinks that we should keep them. I invite noble Lords to look at Question Time on 11 January this year. There were six questions on food standards and Brexit. The noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble—a good Minister—listened to the House and did his best to respond to the points made. He said these six things:
“Our current high standards, including import requirements, will apply when we leave the EU”.
He said that,
“we have been very clear that we are not going to water down or compromise on the standards I have set out”.
He said:
“I want to be clear again: we will not compromise on the standards that will be on the statute book. Those are the requirements that we will adhere to in any trade deals”.
He then said:
“My Lords, as I have said, on our statute book will be all the current EU welfare standards”,
and,
“I am absolutely clear that we will not water down any of our standards”.
Finally, he said that,
“we are not watering down; there will be requirements on the UK statute book”.—[Official Report, 11/1/18; cols. 306-08]
You cannot be clearer than that.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, since this is my noble friend’s last speech in Committee on the Bill and as we are so distressed at the thought of not getting his further advice on our procedures, has he detected any advantage whatever, on any substantial issue relating to food protection or standards, from us leaving the European Union?

Lord Rooker: The short answer to that is no. I will give the evidence as my final point. In 2013, the coalition Government set up the balance of competences review of 32 areas of government. At the time I chaired the Food Standards Agency, a non-ministerial department, so I was part of the coalition in a way. It was a bit of shock when I turned up to a Cabinet sub-committee one day. There was a separate review on animal health and food safety. We consulted and did a lot of research work. As I said, people thought that the EU does not do much and that they were not very secure. We consulted widely on food standards and safety. The balance of views from the Food Standards Agency and Defra—it was a joint report in the end—was that we were better off being in this system of regulations. I am a Brussels sceptic but I believe that, on balance, UK customers are better protected in terms of food and feed in this system. I have not spent much time on feed, but it is the Achilles heel of all this. But the short answer to my noble friend is no. The balance of competences review, which can be found in the Library, is there for everybody to read. We have been through all this before.
I will finish on this point. What happened to the 32 reports on the balance of competences? They were buried, because they all came out with roughly the same idea: by and large we are better off being in the EU arguing our case than being out. So we never heard any more about them until we had the barmy idea to have a referendum.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I spent a lot of my time in government negotiating the 32 reports in the balance of competences review. I remind the Committee that it was a Conservative demand within the coalition agreement of 2010 that there should be an extensive  examination of the balance of competences between the UK and the EU. In almost all the 32 reports, the answer was that stakeholders across the country were satisfied with the current balance and did not wish any repatriation of competences from the EU to the UK. The noble Lord is absolutely right: the No. 10 press office did its utmost to ensure that they were published the day after Parliament rose, either for the summer or for Christmas, to minimise the amount of publicity that the reports would get because the Conservatives were scared of the right wing in their own party, as they still are.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I rest my case.

Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 147A, which proposes a requirement to seek ongoing reciprocal arrangements in the field of professional sport. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for their support of this amendment.
Sport in the UK is woven intricately into the fabric of European policy and the EU’s bilateral arrangements with the world’s international federations of sport. Professional football sits at the pinnacle of that intricate tapestry. Our duty to sports men and women is, first, to understand the ties that bind the sporting world in the UK to Europe and then to unpick, reshape and ultimately redesign a model that keeps our sporting industry robust, competitive and capable of retaining its positon as a global leader. In the brief time that I have available, I want to set out the key points, genuinely confident in the knowledge that the Minister and the Government, and indeed all parties, are interested in seeking the same solution: the retention of an environment in which the British professional sporting landscape can flourish commercially, competently and competitively on behalf of everyone involved in the industry.
It will not have escaped your Lordships’ attention that today is the second day of Cheltenham. Indeed, my expectation is that many noble Lords would prefer to be at Cheltenham than here, but such is their commitment to the Committee stage of this Bill that they are rightly here debating these issues. Cheltenham highlights an important point. The festival focuses and relies on the movement and transportation of horses and on welfare issues. Thoroughbred horseracing and breeding is a truly international industry, with significant roots in Europe. Its continued growth is predicated on the ability to move racehorses as freely as possible for competition and breeding while, crucially, retaining the highest levels of animal health, welfare and biosecurity. A key element to this is the tripartite agreement, or TPA, between the UK, France and Ireland, which facilitates 25,000 movements annually between the three countries for racing, breeding and sales purposes. There is no clarity at all on what will happen to that tripartite agreement post Brexit, but it is essential for the success not just of Cheltenham but of the industry. At Cheltenham alone, 30% of the runners have crossed European borders in order to race.
I very much hope the Minister can give comfort to the House and tell us that after the proposed transition and implementation period through to the end of 2020,  when arrangements for the movement of thoroughbreds are finally determined, they will continue to be based on the thoroughbreds’ high health status. That would mean no severe delays at ports, which is vital, not least for mares who are toing and froing with foals. This issue is critical to the British Horseracing Authority and the Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association, and I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will take that point on board.

Lord Adonis: Is the noble Lord suggesting that Royal Ascot may not happen next year if these matters are not finalised? Does he know whether Her Majesty has been consulted about this eventuality?

Lord Moynihan: I know that the whole question of Royal Ascot and the timing of the Queen’s Speech last year was very much determined by Her Majesty. I know for sure—and all noble Lords will know—that the Government, I hope, are absolutely committed to resolving the issues, which are vitally important and serious for the horseracing industry.
On the wider sporting front, we need clarity and certainty over the EU-UK’s future relationship for the sporting industry. I urge the Government to set out clearly what this relationship will look like so that the sports sector can prepare for the future. We also need to look beyond the specifics of top-level elite and professional sport. While the issues of players and transfers in football are important, they should not be the only focus of government in seeking to negotiate the best possible settlement for the sector.
We also need to focus on the continued freedom of movement on a seasonal basis for particular sports. I hope that the Government will consider proposing sports-specific visas to allow players, fans and support staff to enter and leave the European Union easily.
We have been a very important and attractive destination in hosting many events, not least the London 2012 Olympics. However, there will be increased challenges for fans and players to come into and exit the UK which could not just reduce the pool of workers but risks making the UK a less attractive international destination to host events. I hope the Minister will address that point.
As far as the Premier League is concerned, I mentioned that football was at the pinnacle of the debate. That is because there are very important points about player transfers—Bosman issues are high on that list. I will focus the Committee’s attention today on one point, although there are many aspects of professional sport that will be need to be addressed and I hope are currently being addressed. FIFA has a relationship with the European Union under Article 19, which allows international transfers to be permitted only for players over the age of 18, save for limited exceptions. One exception is that the transfer takes place within the European Union or the EEA, when the age criteria is reduced to 16.
When we leave the EU, we could potentially lose the ability to utilise the exception in Article 19 and therefore be prevented from signing players at other EU clubs between the ages of 16 and 18. That is fundamental to how UK clubs acquire young, talented  and cost-effective players. This sort of youth development issue is extremely important in light of UEFA’s financial fair play regulations. Naturally, losing the Article 19 exception would have adverse consequences for all UK clubs. It is crucial for clubs to sign talented players whom they have identified at the earliest possible occasion, not just to limit the acquisition cost but to develop the young talent that is vitally important.

Lord Reid of Cardowan: It is worth making the point that we are not talking about income for massive, rich clubs. We are talking about many clubs, which might be on the verge of insolvency in terms of their operations, having to seek through their scouting systems talented players within the EU who can not only contribute to the club by playing, but through their development can bring in later transfer fees.

Lord Moynihan: I completely endorse that point. This is not just about the top clubs in the Premier League; it is about the survival of professional football in the country. I am delighted to hear the noble Lord place his points on the record and I completely endorse them.
Briefly, when we look at the rugby football world, there are Kolpak players. I mentioned this at an early stage on Second Reading, so I will not rehearse the Kolpak agreement. Kolpak players, under the Cotonou agreement, have specific non-discriminatory rights once they are lawfully employed in the European Union. In rugby, this means that, once a player from a Kolpak country has legally entered the UK, they cannot be classed as a foreign player under the Rugby Football Union regulations. Currently, the RFU regulations are that there should be no more than two foreign players in a match day squad in the top four tiers of English rugby. There are some 165 contracted Kolpak players in the top four tiers.
This is a very important point. Negotiations will need to take place within the context of the European Union and the UK Government and also with the Rugby Football Union. There needs to be early engagement with the RFU so clubs have visibility and can make strong commercial decisions moving forward over a number of years. That is vitally important. Many noble Lords have made the point today that we need consistency, clarity and vision so that decisions in the world of sport can be made early rather than the day before the season starts.
I will conclude by saying that the Government should, in my view, focus not only on the impact of, say, professional players in cricket but also the impact on the business of sport. In cricket many first class counties rely on seasonal workers to deliver match day experiences, especially in the hospitality and stewarding sectors. Any change from the current migration system could affect cricket’s ability to host not only domestic competitions but future international competitions. The ICC Cricket World Cup comes just two months after Brexit. While the teams are primarily from outside the EU, nobody would wish to see any arrangement that inhibited the ability of fans to attend matches.
Again for cricket, the ability to set the appropriate level of overseas players in our domestic competition is essential. The ECB is the national governing body of cricket and its quota of overseas players is set to strike the balance between encouraging the development of home-grown players and ensuring that the best talent in the world can come and test their skills against the best English and Welsh talent.
I will conclude with one point that may be of benefit as a result of Brexit. I know that the noble Lord intervened on the last speech to ask if there was anything that might benefit. There is much EU-specific legislation that impacts sport. It clearly remains to be seen whether that will continue in the long term. EU state aid legislation is an important example in this context. It is one of the key pillars, as we all know, of EU competition law and essentially prohibits a member state from distorting competition by favouring one market participant over another. In the sports sector this has come up in the context of stadium developments, such as the allegation that licensing the Olympic stadium to West Ham constituted unlawful state assistance. Indeed, the European Commission has clawed back €18 million from Real Madrid after the city council transferred land to the club at a significant undervalue, while six other Spanish clubs were also found to be involved in similar breaches.
Given that there is currently no equivalent domestic law, this could be one of the first areas of legislation to be scrutinised—and I very much hope it will be, because if removed it would potentially allow public bodies to subsidise more stadium developments and other major sporting infrastructure projects in this country. We desperately need that investment at local authority level. I hope that that one benefit in a speech of otherwise significant concerns that face professional sport could also be looked at carefully by my noble friend the Minister and his colleagues. I am grateful once again to the noble Lord, Lord Monks, for giving us the opportunity to raise these issues. I am equally grateful to my noble friends for putting their names to the amendment.

Lord Wigley: My Lords, my Amendment 147B is in this rather diverse group of amendments. I declare an interest in that most of my close family are involved in the creative industries in Wales. My amendment is very similar to Amendment 146, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who cannot be here, unfortunately. I support that amendment. My wording makes reference to the creative industries in all parts of the United Kingdom.
By their very nature the creative industries are international. Nothing that emerges from the negotiations that the Government are undertaking with the EU should in any way serve as a disincentive to all elements of the creative industries to engage as fully as they do now with counterparts throughout the European Union, or for those engaged in creative industries in the other 27 member states of the EU to maintain their engagement with colleagues in the UK and, indeed, with the general public.
The creative industries are the fastest-growing sector of the Welsh economy, having increased by way of employment by 58% between 2005 and 2014. Film and  television account for a significant part of this, and the Welsh Government have had creative industries as a growth target since 2006. Our Welsh universities generate 5,000 creative industry graduates each year in such subjects as animation, visual effects and digital and mobile technology.
The creative industries are a key component of the UK economy, worth more than £35 billion per annum, with almost half their exports going to the EU. The audio-visual sector alone contributes £16 billion to UK GVA, with £7 billion of exports—more than £3 billion of them to EU countries.
The Creative Industries Federation published its Global Trade Report in January, based on evidence from 130 leading creative businesses. Of these, more than 80% were not confident that the UK’s creative industries could maintain their global reputation after Brexit. Forty per cent said that a no deal outcome would harm their ability to export, with 21% saying that it would lead to them moving their business abroad. They desperately want the UK to continue to have an active role in future EU legislation, as that can have a far-reaching impact on their work. The sector urgently needs to know how alignment with the EU will be managed post Brexit. Who will make the rules and regulations that will affect their ability to export to the EU countries? They also need clarity on the movement of self-employed performers and are calling for a labour movement framework that enables individuals and businesses to travel unhindered throughout the EU in order to provide their services.
The federation is calling for ongoing participation for UK citizens and businesses in EU cultural and educational programmes. It wants mutual recognition of qualifications—as has been mentioned already—and an agreement that covers the key dimension of intellectual property. It also wants clarification about the future of the digital single market.
One very important function is provided by UK-based broadcasters which broadcast programmes and services to European Union audiences. It is a significant sector; I believe that a staggering 700 such services are generated from the UK. Will they be allowed after Brexit to broadcast without barriers? They need to know the likely position relating to intellectual property. In particular, there is a strong feeling in the sector that we must be able to bring in labour from the EU as we do not have enough home-grown skills to satisfy demand.
Last November, the Welsh Government hosted in Cardiff a conference of EU peripheral maritime regions on European co-operation beyond Brexit. Their final declaration emphasised the need for continued participation in Creative Europe. Will we still have access to Creative Europe, which supports transnational co-operation projects involving cultural and creative organisations from different countries? If we lose access to this resource, it will be a very great loss to Wales and many other parts of the United Kingdom. Will the Minister clarify the position on that point when he responds?

Baroness Randerson: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 147C. In this rather pick-and-mix debate, as we go from one important topic to another, my amendment refers to transport. Our transport  systems operate on a system of ongoing reciprocal arrangements and there is no WTO fallback position—indeed, I spoke about this in the early hours of yesterday morning. It is essential that we remain part of the arrangements that already exist, because our whole economy and society stand on the shoulders of our transport systems.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: The noble Baroness described this as a pick-and-mix debate. Is there not one thing in common, that in every case we would be much better remaining in the European Union?

Baroness Randerson: The noble Lord makes an excellent comment. I am not in any way undermining the debate. I said that these are really important topics. Of course, the one thing they have in common in the pick-and-mix—they are all sweets—is that they are  all really important aspects that we need to remain part of.
If our transport systems stop, we all stop. It is essential that we continue with the existing international arrangements. In transport, it is estimated that there are some 65 of these sets of international arrangements in total. Do not worry, I am not going to go through all of them, but to illustrate, I spent yesterday in the Moses Room debating the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill, which is being rushed through here because the Government have discovered that for lorries to continue to travel abroad and vice versa, and for us to continue to be able to drive abroad, we might need to fall back on the Vienna convention of 1968 and the Geneva convention of 1949.
We signed the Vienna convention but we never ratified it. We did not need to because we joined the EU. We now need to do so, for which we have to give a year’s notice. Noble Lords might wish to think about what this country will be doing if the Government have their way in a year’s time. Therefore, that Bill is in a bit of a rush. It was not expected and it was not in the Queen’s Speech. It has clearly been put together by the Government at great speed because it is a very skeletal Bill. Indeed, the Delegated Powers Committee report called it not so much “skeletal”, more of “a mission statement”. We have no idea what system the Government will introduce in the regulations. Therefore, it is important that we retain the right to know what will be put forward to scrutinise it. At the moment it allows for only negative instruments, which is very unsatisfactory.
That example does not inspire confidence that the Government are on top of the job. There are probably other corners of the world of international transport that they have not come upon yet. Another example is the open skies agreement between the US and the EU, which we are a member of by virtue of being a member of the EU. I have a Private Member’s Bill on this that your Lordships might like to support. Without this agreement, planes will be grounded. It affects flights to and from the US, as well as within the EU. It affects not just our right for planes in Britain to fly to EU countries, but our right for them to go from one country to another in the EU. It is not easy to renegotiate this because of the complex ownership of our major airlines, several of which have a majority foreign  ownership, although they are UK-based airlines. By the international judgment on these things, when we cease to be a member of the EU they in effect cease to be UK airlines, or could cease to be.
There is also the European Aviation Safety Agency, of which we have been a predominant member. It is very important that we remain a member of it. There are many other agreements relating to railways and a whole host of agreements associated with the maritime industry, including many that affect the protection of workers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, has already amply illustrated the importance and impact on consumer rights of these international agreements. Consumers in Britain have benefited enormously from the rights given to them, for example in relation to air travel, as a result of international agreements of which we are members.
The new customs we will have to be part of will have a major impact on our haulage and international travel sector. The British Retail Consortium believes that 180,000 UK companies, many of them small and medium-sized enterprises, will be drawn into customs declarations for the first time with new excise and VAT systems. Although they have exported, they have done so entirely to the EU and therefore have not had to have these customs arrangements. When they talk to me, they describe the huge cost to them of becoming involved in all these new systems. As this is such a massive topic, I am not going to produce any more examples, but I can assure noble Lords that there are many dozens more.

Lord McNally: I wonder if my noble friend could add just one more example. She and I and the Minister—before he was sent to the Brexit gulag—worked on the Space Industry Bill. Nothing more typifies the need for co-operation within Europe than that industry. Will she add to her litany of examples the space industry, to which we have made such a contribution and about which there are many unanswered questions?

Baroness Randerson: My noble friend makes a very good point. The uncertainty is already having an impact on the space industry because aspects of it are moving abroad. The same applies to the automotive industry, where we have had such growth in recent years. The impact of customs arrangements on the industry will be so complex that it will not be able to import and export parts across borders during the manufacturing process as companies have been doing. People occasionally say, “Well, what you can do is produce all the goods in one country”. They make the point that it takes about five years to develop a supply chain in one particular process in one country. It is extremely difficult, nigh on impossible, to do that in the modern world.
To conclude, I meet dozens of representatives of businesses in the transport sector on a weekly basis. I am assiduous in meeting organisations and individual companies and going on visits in order to take the temperature of their views. I am yet to meet a single  one who thinks they would be better off outside the EU, outside the single market, outside the customs union. They are, with a will, trying to prepare themselves for the worst, but they still hope for the best.

Lord Green of Deddington: Will the noble Baroness explain one point? She has set out a range of extremely important issues, as have other noble Lords. Clearly, a whole range of things is of extreme importance. I do not understand how this suggestion of putting all these issues into a mandate in order that, presumably, Parliament should take a view on it and then go to the European Union and discuss it can possibly work.

Baroness Randerson: The noble Lord underestimates the level of wisdom and expertise that sits within Parliament. The EU is managing its negotiations in line with the European Parliament. There is no way in which we need to adopt a different model; the supremacy of Parliament should remain.

Baroness Deech: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question in relation to these amendments—I am sorry that I was a little late because of the early start; I may have missed the answer. Given that three times as many European students come here as ours go to Europe—in my experience, ours always wanted to go, and still go, to the USA; given that we know that we will not expel our migrants in any brutal fashion; given that they will presumably want to fly here; given that we have more Indian and Chinese students coming here than we have from the whole EU because our universities are so much better and far higher in the league table than any single continental European university, and given that Australian and Middle Eastern airlines fly in and out all the time, what is the problem? Is the pressure not on European nations? Are they perhaps begging us in the negotiation to allow them freedom of movement to come here to participate in the activities that I have mentioned? Cannot our airlines fly in exactly the same way as Australian, Middle Eastern and American airlines?

Lord Judd: My noble friend Lord Stevenson invited me to add my words to what he was saying, and I am very glad to do so, but I am associated with some of the other amendments as well. I want to speak honestly from past to past. In 1978, I can vividly remember enjoying being part of the Committee of Ministers in Europe working on mutual recognition of qualifications. What was so exciting about that discussion was that everyone in the room recognised that the issues with which we were dealing could not be contained within national frontiers, that they were all international in character and all crossed frontiers. We recognised that the way we looked at health, at the enhancement of the arts and at the quality of the professions as they built for our future would be best served if we fully co-operated. The measures we sought were there to support the whole concept of co-operation and enhancement of the quality of life for people in Europe. I find it utterly miserable that we have deserted that reality, have deserted that dream and are talking now about regulations to try to salvage a situation into which we should never have strayed.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, unlike for the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, this is my first as well as last contribution to the Committee stage, but it is on a very big question indeed. While I support the amendment effectively introduced by my noble friend Lord Monks, I have become rather sceptical about the value of most of the debates about the withdrawal Bill, because they are not put in any sort of picture about the architecture of the treaty that we are moving towards.
To use the current vernacular, cherry-picking is all very well, but frankly it will not get us very far. The amendment would give the Parliament whose sovereignty we hear so much about the opportunity to consider how we can get towards a satisfactory outcome from this affair for the nation as a whole. We do not at this moment need to split hairs about whether we would be amending a draft presented by the Government or whether Parliament would consider some sort of resolution on a mandate. Today is the day to consider the principle, which is the broader canvas on which this will be played out.
Only yesterday, the President of the European Commission, Mr Juncker, shortly to be succeeded, we are told on the Brussels grapevine, by Monsieur Barnier, stated:
“As the clock counts down, with one year to go, it is now time to translate speeches into treaties; to turn … broad suggestions”,
into “workable solutions”. We have to raise our game and address the bigger picture to see how the Bill can be amended to facilitate that.
The field that I know best, workers’ rights, provides a good illustration, particularly those derived from collective agreements made in Brussels under the Maastricht treaty, a baker’s dozen ranging from pro rata rights for part-time workers to rights to information and consultation. The blunt fact is that the only way they can be guaranteed if we leave the EU is to move from pillar 1 of the EEA, the EU, to pillar 2 of the EEA, which is EFTA and, by doing so, stay in the single market with all its provisions. That has yet to be broached with our friends in Norway, for example, and the clock is ticking on this too: how that could be worked out on the EFTA-EEA side. It would be very discourteous not to start that process in an exploratory fashion with them, especially given the context that it is now at least 50% likely that that is where we will wind up.
The nearest we have to a document that would show the architecture that the treaty would cover is the draft of the withdrawal agreement, which has been in the Printed Paper Office for two weeks. It is the first outline of what will become a treaty, like the treaty of Maastricht, for example, which caused Sir John Major so much difficulty with his “bastards” the best part of 30 years ago. It gives us an indication of the territory that must be filled in, a framework to add in what this country wants to insert separately as and when such can be agreed.
For reasons that we all understand and to which my noble friend has referred, it is counterproductive to the national interest to fail to take the opportunity to spell out the mandate that Parliament wishes to give our negotiators. Some people have not yet realised why this is so important.
I used to work at the TUC and I take a trade union negotiation as an analogy. In a trade union negotiation with an employer, one does not put into a remit, on the one extreme, “Let’s all have a 20-hour week. Let’s double our pay. Let’s have eight weeks’ holiday”, or whatever. Even if the members thought that that might sound like a good idea, the trade union executive would say, “No, that is ridiculously ambitious. You will not get it and, moreover, in failing to get it, the members will be disillusioned”. To go to the other extreme, you do not normally say, “Let’s negotiate and see what happens. Just wait and judge the outcome of the negotiations”. There is an interesting reason why that is not a good idea. Apart from anything else, the union executive would have no established criteria against which to explain how it has eventually come to recommend acceptance of an agreement. Not setting out a mandate is putting off the evil day when there would have to be that sort of difficulty or indeed guarantees that sort of crisis.
As regards the architecture and what is in the mandate as opposed to the detail—it is difficult to know how one would spatchcock in all the things that have been mentioned in the last two hours—I need to distinguish the major planks that do not stand on their own but have to be part of a treaty. They have to be part of a comprehensive solution. They cannot just be hanging there. The mandate has to have some major planks on the single market and the customs union, all within a framework of the family of trade relationships and rule-making relationships of which we want to be a part.
The examples given this morning can be added to. There are literally thousands of things that we cannot begin again to negotiate from scratch. We have to have categories that have some read-across. If you take a broad sweep, in industry and commerce about half the people would say that their number one worry is regulations in the single market and what happens to them. Will we have to have new standards and so on? The other one, if you take the broad sweep, is tariffs and customs. Many companies, ranging from manufacturing to financial services—it depends on the field—would say that it is about 50:50. They have worries about both and there are some overlapping concerns.
The referendum question did not say, “How many of these regulations do you want to get rid of?” Where I think we can distinguish the different levels of architecture in a mandate is to talk about, for example, the case for quasi-membership—if I can call it that—via EFTA of the single market and the customs union. It is not, in my opinion, “a customs union” but “the customs union”. It is there and it actually works.
I stress that these vehicles have been going strong for 20 or more years. They have all the problems removed from them by now. They run reasonably well. To bigheadedly deny ourselves the possibility of being in either pillar 1, the EU, or pillar 2, EFTA, would be to shoot ourselves in the foot. Membership of EFTA would mean that we were still in something that works and has relationships around the world and we would not have to start from scratch. EFTA is a vehicle that has been road-tested since about 1958. We would have  half-price membership and not be at the table of the EU. Some people say, “That’s a downside. We voted to come out of the EU and now our objection is that we are not at the table”. I have never heard anything so ridiculous in my life. However, as a big player, we could help to beef up what is already written, in broad terms, in the articles of the European Economic Area on pre-legislative arrangements on consultation on rule-making within the EU.
We would not just be shooting ourselves in the foot if we did not recognise all those points; we would be shooting ourselves in the head. This is a tangible step that we can take right now. It is a broad framework for the other amendments to be taken today. In my opinion, it is the most important one because it is the architectural provision within which all the others have to be considered. This is the way in which Parliament, at this critical juncture in our country’s history, could exercise the sovereignty that we hear so much about.

Baroness Wheatcroft: My Lords, 20 months after the referendum we are no closer to knowing what the UK will look like in a post-Brexit world. In a series of speeches this morning, the Committee has heard desperate cries for clarity and certainty in everything from football to horseracing, from transport to the law. But there is no clarity or certainty and this really does not feel like taking back control. I put my name to Amendment 142 because it aims to give back some control of this process to Parliament. It was ably described by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, and then by the noble Lord, Lord Lea. It intends to get some process into what, at the moment, looks like a dreadful muddle.
We need to support all the amendments in this group—but they could all, in their way, hang under Amendment 142. They all demonstrate the need, and the wish, to impose some form of direction on a Government who look as if they would appreciate being given it. They need some help in how they conduct their negotiations with the EU 27, and that is what this amendment intends to deliver.
We have heard that the Government do not want to be shackled; they need to be free to negotiate on their own terms. Nonsense. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Lea, negotiations benefit from having their terms—for both sides—laid out relatively clearly at the beginning. I have seen it from the other side of the table from the noble Lord, Lord Lea, and it is jolly useful to be able to say, “My board won’t put up with that”. It would surely be very helpful for the government negotiators to go into their next round of negotiations with a clear view that they can say, “This far and no further as far as my board—Parliament—is concerned”. The EU 27 are making it very clear what their terms of negotiation are.
So we need to give clarity. We have heard various wish lists from the Government, but hope does not constitute a policy. We now need to empower the Government to go into negotiations with a clear sense of purpose. Like many in this House, I hope that that will include achieving a customs agreement. That is what business needs; it is what the country wants; and  it is certainly part of the solution—although not the entire one—to the issue of Northern Ireland, which will be debated later today.
Time is running out, energy is being expended and money is being spent—getting us, it would seem at the moment, precisely nowhere. The Department for Business is going to be taking on an extra 1,000 people—it is nearly there now—to deal with Brexit. Goodness knows how they are going to do that. One knows that Boy Scouts should be prepared, but these people are having to prepare for they know not what and to cover all eventualities. It is like trying to shape water—without the prospect of an Oscar.
There is no point in the Government going into negotiations if they are going to eventually return to Parliament with the terms of a deal—and if the “meaningful vote” is to have any meaning, they will do—if Parliament is already clear that it will not accept that deal. How much more sensible and time efficient it would be to allow Parliament to hear what the Government really want and for us, in both Houses, to have a chance to debate it and to give the negotiators a mandate. That is what this amendment is about. It is very simple really, and I absolutely support it.

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem: My Lords, I support Amendment 142 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monks, to which I also have added my name. I can be brief, in view of the effective, coherent and measured way in which the amendment was introduced, and I will confine my remarks to the question of sovereignty.
On the face of it, the purpose of the amendment, which I support, is to involve Parliament more considerably in the process of Brexit. A recurring theme of those who argued that the United Kingdom should leave the European Union was that we wanted to make our own laws. I interpret that, and believe that I am entitled to do so, as being by implication an assertion of the sovereignty of Parliament. To begin with, that was not an implication recognised by the Government, who were forced to do so by the Supreme Court in the case of Miller.
I think it can be argued fairly that sovereignty carries rights and responsibilities and that both of these exist in parallel—some might put it slightly differently and say that it carries powers and responsibilities. But the negotiations that are being carried on by the Government are being conducted on the principle that the Government are answerable to Parliament. The responsibility for the decisions of the Government, therefore, is a consequence of the sovereignty of Parliament. Governments are not sovereign, although some think they are—and it is not difficult to think of Prime Ministers who thought they were sovereign as well. If the ultimate responsibility is Parliament’s, then Parliament has responsibility but no power. I am not sure what the antonym for a harlot is, but I hope I make the point that the sovereignty that we enjoy is sovereignty that carries responsibility.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that we give practical application to the sovereignty of Parliament by giving Parliament in these matters a power to  fashion the terms of the future of the United Kingdom’s relations with the European Union. To deny that power to Parliament is a breach of our sovereignty.

Baroness Grey-Thompson: My Lords, I support Amendment 147A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to which my name is also attached. I have a number of interests to declare in the area of sport, one of which is that I am the chair of ukactive. I am slightly disappointed that sport and physical activity has not had a higher profile within the debate on the EU withdrawal Bill. We cannot assume that sport will be okay just because sport is generally very good at looking after itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised many issues, and perhaps they are just the tip of the iceberg of the challenges we face as the impact on elite sport filters down to the grass roots. He talked about Cheltenham. It is not just the movement of horses that will be affected. That might be the very visible impact of the legislation, but there will be an impact on the local economy—on the provision of stables, food supplies, grooms and so on—that we will not see until it is too late. We might understand the impact of a high-profile player not coming to the UK or choosing to leave the UK, but we will not see the impact on associated personnel and coaches, on how it filters down to the academy structure, on the potential success of our clubs, and on whether fans choose to go and watch those sports. It will go right down to the individual owner of a burger van parked on the outskirts of a community if there is a huge impact on sport.
We know that the value of community leisure to the UK economy alone is £3.3 billion a year. That has been worked out via a social value calculator. The impact of sport amounts to many more billions. While I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that it might be a pick-and-mix group of amendments, each of them has a massively important impact on the economic prosperity and international standing of our country.

Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, spoken to so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, as well as the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. Both noble Lords have set out very well why the creative industries are hugely important for the country, economically and in terms of soft power—and, I would add, in the potential growth of employment in the sector, not just in London but across the whole country, particularly in the area of creative tech.
As has been explained, the sector now faces many serious concerns in the light of Brexit. I will highlight just one: the mobility of the workforce. This concern runs like a thread through the briefings I have received. It is one that affects many who work in the arts and in creative industries, including those who run their own small business. This is not just about creatives coming into the UK but about British artists and creatives journeying into Europe—a direction that is to some extent being overlooked. Europe, as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, has said, accounts for 45% of the market.
The potential loss of free movement it is the greatest concern of many of the arts, and prompted the #FreeMoveCreate campaign to be set up last year by fine artists and musicians, namely the Artists Information Company and the Incorporated Society of Musicians, but joined now by a wide membership that includes the Creative Industries Federation and the British Fashion Council. That campaign has been gathering data from the industry, specifically about present patterns of movement, which will help the Government to understand precisely the extent of this concern.
The creative industries are naturally collaborative and internationalist in outlook. They are unlike the traditional industries in one key respect: people themselves are an essential aspect of the product. Whether we are talking about artists, musicians, fashion designers, creatives in film and television or creative tech, including video games and advertising, it is absolutely essential that the British creative industries have physical access to the rest of Europe. Free movement of personnel, more than in any other industry—43% of those in the creative industries are self-employed, rising to 90% for musicians—is a crucial element of the creative and, indeed, digital industries as a whole.
It cannot be overestimated how much that movement must be free. Flexibility and the need for rapid response are key aspects of the creative industries, with British musicians, dancers and fashion models, for example, often needed immediately on the spot, a plane’s flight away. Ad hoc visits with work found and taken up abroad are also hugely significant, particularly for the self-employed. As #FreeMoveCreate says, the time taken to secure a visa is lost work, and if every three months, for example, an artist had to turn down a performance or an exhibition to secure an ongoing visa permission, that could cause a major loss in income, or indeed the loss of a project.
Artists and creatives make multiple journeys abroad, move while in Europe and often individually work on many projects. Multiple visas, work permits and tax forms will not be a solution. Have the Government looked carefully at the effect of Brexit on the self-employed, who will often work for many different larger organisations or clients abroad? At present it is simple: their EU passport is their work permit, with the only thing required being their A1 certificate demonstrating the payment of national insurance contributions. Any kind of delay or paperwork additional to what is normal within the EU could kill this work, since UK workers will be immediately at a disadvantage.
The allied concern is that of the movement of equipment, including instruments, sets, costumes and much else, which has to be transported across borders as quickly as it is now without red tape. Finally, we are not necessarily talking about short periods of time abroad. As an example, a placement with an orchestra could last for years.
The recent House of Commons DCMS committee report on the potential impact of Brexit on the creative industries makes the recommendation that,
“the Government should seek to retain free movement of people during any transitional period after the UK formally ceases to be a member of the EU … If the visa system is to change subsequently, an intensive and detailed process of consultation with all those affected will need to begin as soon as possible”.
I hope that the Government are taking very careful note of this, alongside the many other recommendations in that report.

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury: My Lords, I rise to add my support to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and wish him a speedy recovery. I also speak to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. May I add my thanks for the way in which recent Governments of all hues have got the point of the creative industries and their importance? In my case, it was the late Matthew Evans, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, who was a Labour Government Minister when I first entered this House. He encouraged me to support and put down debates and Questions on the creative industries—something that I duly did and continue to do. I also add my appreciation for everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Jowell, and the right honourable Ed Vaizey have done to support the sector.
However, their good work and prescient strategy now risk unravelling. To get to the substantive point of Amendment 146, without some form of reciprocal agreement with the remaining EU member states, our creative and cultural sectors will, as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, has said, suffer terrible economic and cultural damage. It is absolutely essential that, as well as being at the heart of the Government’s industrial strategy—which they are—the creative industries are at the top table of Brexit negotiations.
As the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, have said, many things are crucial to the continuing success of the creative industries—country of origin, IP legislation and collaboration, portability and funding. For example, the British Film Institute distributes around £50 million per annum in lottery funds, but Creative Europe contributes a further £13 million, which would potentially go. Another crucial issue is freedom of movement, which is access not just to international talent, as others have said, but to much-needed skills. Also crucial are the ability for touring performers to cross borders with minimum red tape; design law; and protection from the EU’s cultural exception rules.
Supporting this vital, vibrant sector is of paramount importance to our economy, to our country’s sense of itself and to our place in the world. Our rich history of cultural exchange must be maintained within Europe. Unless the interests of the creative industries are protected, leaving Europe will be a disaster for a jewel in the crown of our nation. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I rise to add a few words to what has been said already. In particular, I will focus my remarks on the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Wigley. I should add that I and members of my family have been involved in the creative industries.
I want essentially to talk about broadcasting and its allied sectors, for which it has been said that the UK is the principal centre in the European Union and, as a result, has become one of the pre-eminent broadcasting hubs in the world.
The industry as it is now is essentially a child of the 1990s—a child of a union between digital technology and the European Union single market. In this country, noble Lords will remember, digital television was launched by the Broadcasting Act 1996, and the European single market officially came into being in 1993. Perhaps I ought to explain that I was the Minister for Broadcasting responsible for that legislation. For much of the 1990s, I was working in the European Parliament on the single market. I have always been a strong supporter of this Conservative initiative, but I am aware that that is perhaps a rather unfashionable stance at present.
We do not live in a laissez-faire, devil-take-the-hindmost market. We live in a regulated market like all the countries with which we usually compare ourselves. One of the characteristics of that is that legal access to a market does not of and by itself confer a right to trade in it. It is through the instrument of the single market that this sector has beneficially enlarged UK sovereignty in an interdependent world so that across the entire EU it has done things to its own and our nation’s advantage.
We have had a number of figures quoted already about the value of this sector to the country, so there is absolutely no need for me to repeat them. It is interesting that the two sets of confidential documents I have seen in 100 Parliament Street confirm the damaging impact of leaving that marketplace.
If we do not attain equivalent arrangements in any post-Brexit world, the capabilities of this sector will be much diminished, as has been said. As we speak, the sector is rearranging its modus operandi and exporting not only its products but its infrastructure elsewhere in the EU. Furthermore, as has also been said, its capabilities are becoming much reduced, as London is a magnet and a melting pot for many of the most talented across Europe.
Only a couple of weekends ago, I was talking to a friend who is a very senior director of one of the UK’s most well-known, globally esteemed firms of architects, a name that I suspect that every noble Lord would recognise without problem. He told me that the greatest damage Brexit was going to do to his business was to dry up the stream of highly talented people who wanted to work with them and contribute to this country in that way. It is happening now.
We sometimes forget that one of the United States’s greatest instruments of soft power is Hollywood, and this sector does something equivalent for this country. If we cannot reverse the inevitable consequences of serving Article 50 in this respect, real damage will be done to this country. The Prime Minister, to her great credit, recognised that and has assured us that she is striving to do whatever she can to mitigate that consequence. Parliament should support her in doing that.
The implications of all this should be spelled out to everybody in this country, not just the privileged few who are given access to 100 Parliament Street. That should strengthen the Prime Minister’s hand, not least here at home, as the reality of what is at stake—both the prize to be won and what could be lost—should be available to everybody.

Lord Adonis: Before the noble Lord sits down, I ask him the same question that I asked the noble Lord, Lord Rooker: can he see any benefit at all from leaving the European Union in respect of the broadcasting and cultural sectors with which he is so familiar?

Lord Inglewood: Not immediately.

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Monks said, we in Parliament appear at the moment to be mere spectators, highly dependent on the Government to negotiate on our behalf—indeed, on behalf of future generations—an agreement with the EU as to how we withdraw from nearly half a century of membership and, more seriously, how we work with and alongside the EU in the decades to come: the canvas, or the mandate, in the words of my noble friend Lord Lea.
It is to this latter task that Amendment 144 and its amendments draw our attention. At the moment, the Government are telling us nothing as to the shape of the agreement they wish to reach. “Deep”? “Bespoke”? Those words tell us nothing. What does it mean in regard to family law; our highly profitable creative industries; the protection of consumers, especially in food safety or transport—those trains, planes and ships that carry people and goods from here to there every hour of the day? How does it affect our artistic, sporting and other professionals, who are currently able to work across the EU, representing British companies or citizens, competing, performing or conducting architectural, veterinary or scientific work across that enormous market, or undertaking accounting or auditing work for multinationals? Indeed, a whole range of jobs are currently undertaken day by day by virtue of the IP agreements, broadcasting licensing or the mutual recognition of qualifications, which my noble friend Lord Brooke set out so clearly. Negotiations are needed on those areas.
Britain, as everyone has emphasised, is a country of talent. People with that talent tend to fly in and out of other countries to ply their skills. My noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith arrived early this morning from plying his skills elsewhere. That is how our professionals work. But they can do that only if the recognition is there. Within the EU it can happen by automatic recognition for professions with harmonised minimum training conditions—the nurses and doctors we have already heard about, dentists, pharmacists, architects and vets, albeit that they may have to register elsewhere. There is a general system for some, such as lawyers, auditors, insurance intermediaries and translators; or recognition by virtue of professional experience, for example for carpenters and beauticians; or the A1 system, if I heard it correctly, for artists.
In addition, there is the fly in, fly out route. For architects working on projects in other EU countries, in Berlin or elsewhere, or for lawyers representing our British clients, this ability is essential—as indeed it is, as we have heard, for a combination of racehorses, models, opera singers, pop stars, sports specialists, designers  or even film crews. Understandably, organisations  representing all those groups have been in touch imploring us to press the Government to raise the issue of reciprocity and recognition higher up their priorities, as they fear otherwise a loss of business in just one year’s time. It is why, like the other issues requiring reciprocity from our partners—whether in family law or in sports, emphasised by our Olympians, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, or the creative industries or broadcasting, which would have been emphasised had he not been ill by my noble friend Lord Puttnam—these amendments seek to insert these elements into the Government’s negotiating aims.
Equally crucial but less well recognised by the Government is the need to negotiate consumer rights, whether over goods and services purchased or the food we eat, as set out so clearly by my noble friends Lady Crawley and Lord Rooker, who knows a thing or two about food safety—even, as we heard, about honey.
There are two aspects to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Monks. One is to stress the breadth and importance of what is being negotiated, but the other fundamental aspect is to require the negotiating mandate—the “asks” which are to be put in the hands of our representatives to the EU—to be approved by Parliament, not just by “fumbling” Ministers, as my noble friend called them, or “amateurs” in the words of my noble friend Lord Rooker. Rather more politely, the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, just said that Ministers perhaps need some help.
The importance of this is clear. It is our country’s future that these Ministers are negotiating. We need to see the objectives that they have set for themselves. These objectives will determine the sort of country we will be. They will determine our trading, security, legal, environmental and financial arrangements with the continent. This is too important to be left to a secret document. We want to see the path down which the Government seek to lead us.

Lord Addington: My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 147A, to which I have added my name. The world of sport, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned, is a complicated one that fits into all the other strands here. He spoke about Cheltenham most passionately. I live in the village of Lambourn, which has a mass exodus to Cheltenham. However, round it are other things that are not, say, France and Ireland. When you come to the show-jumping world, there are other countries coming there, with other workers, and you have travel from other nations such as Germany and Holland. It gets more complicated the more you look at it. The employment rights of professional sportsmen get more and more complicated and tap into the other things we have spoken about. It comes into the creative industries. All of these come across.
Are you going to stop the expertise of Parliament getting into this? Government departments and Ministers tend to be very bad at picking up on these concerns—and that is effectively the function of Parliament. How many of us here spend our entire lives saying, “You hadn’t thought of that. You haven’t spoken about that”? It is virtually all we do. Civil servants do not  have a limitless supply of crystal balls, and neither do party hacks backing up the machine of government. Unless Parliament gets in and we have comprehensive agreements, when we do something this complicated we are going to make mistakes. Sport is just one example. The creative industries is another. It was not that the list was long for this group; it was not long enough. There must be a way of getting this information in. The way to do that is to aim to get Members of both Houses of Parliament to get through, because there is nothing else that can start to do it.
The main amendment here—and those supporting it—point us this way, and unless the Minister can make some response that tells us how that is going to happen, we are going to have major problems. I hope this will be the first and last time I have to speak on this Bill—but if the Minister does not give a proper answer I will be back.

Lord Callanan: My Lords, there is a theme that recurs in many of our debates on the Bill; and perhaps in this debate most of all. I think the noble Lord, Lord Addington, expressed the view that this Government somehow do not respect Parliament, do not understand its place in the constitution and are somehow seeking to work around it or sideline it. With respect, I hope to demonstrate that this suggestion is unfounded. Let me be clear and emphatic. Given Parliament’s pre-eminent position in our constitution, it is not possible for the Government to disregard it or work around it—and nor, of course, would it be desirable for them to seek to do so.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Why, therefore, did Gina Miller have to take the Government to the High Court?

Lord Callanan: That is a separate issue—but we respected the outcome and the Article 50 Bill was, of course, approved by Parliament.
The need for parliamentary assent to executive action is woven into our constitution at every juncture, and rightly so. Of course, on occasion Parliament puts a question to the electorate directly for their views. The debate we are having today—and had on previous days—is of course the result of one of those occasions. In the course of the debates on this Bill, it has been asserted that it has profound constitutional implications, and so it does. However, I am wary of endorsing some of the language that has been used with regard to the delegated powers in this Bill.
If noble Lords have some time to take a look at the draft statutory instruments that we published last week, they will perhaps see what I mean when I say that there is a profound disconnect between the picture painted at times in this House of the types of powers we are taking and the actual uses to which we propose to put those powers. I urge noble Lords to look at these draft instruments on the GOV.UK website.
The group of amendments we have been debating so far today and the group to which we will turn next do of course raise some profound constitutional questions. They require us to ask ourselves who can act on the international plane on behalf of the UK, and how the  mechanisms of control and accountability operate for the conduct of such action. They pose the question of if and how there should be a role for the courts in examining the conduct of those negotiations. They also pose questions about the circumstances—if any—in which it would be appropriate for Parliament to consider action that goes against a decision made in a referendum.
Our debate here today has, understandably, touched on a number of different areas. However, I now wish to address the core theme of the amendments in this group: that it is for the legislature to set the mandate for the negotiations that the Government are currently undertaking with the EU. It was right that the electorate had the opportunity to make its voice heard at the last election, and the result of that democratic exercise was the return of the Government in their current form, to pursue their stated objective of a deep and special partnership with the EU.
Most of the amendments in this group are attached to Amendment 142, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, and they raise important and valid issues in the context of our future relationship with the EU. I reassure noble Lords that I will revisit these issues later in my response. However, as a point of principle, it is not beneficial to enter into a negotiation with a number of domestic constraints on exactly what we can negotiate. Flexibility is necessary for a successful negotiated outcome.
The challenge now is to make a success of our exit and get the best deal possible for the UK, so that this House, the other place, and our national conversation more broadly can turn to discussing and taking decisions on what kind of country we wish to be after we have concluded our negotiations with the EU. After exit, and once we have negotiated the new deep and special partnership, great opportunities for new decisions will open up in this Parliament and in the devolved legislatures.
In case it appears that I am trying to exclude the role of Parliament in shaping our negotiating objectives, I once again reassure the Committee that I am doing nothing of the sort. Parliament does not need to go beyond our settled constitutional boundaries and set mandates in order to exert profound influence over the conduct of the negotiations. We take incredibly seriously our need to keep Parliament apprised of the Government’s negotiating intentions. That is for the purpose not just of transmitting information but of inviting scrutiny and allowing Parliament and its committees to take informed views. Government positions are created, tested and refined in the light of continual challenge from this Parliament. We are mindful always of the Government’s ultimate accountability to Parliament, and in this particular circumstance we are mindful, too, that we will be seeking Parliament’s approval of the agreements that are currently under negotiation.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, does the Minister not see a profound contradiction in his remarks? He has praised the role and significance of Parliament—until it actually chooses to express a view. Is it not the whole purpose of Parliament to express views? My noble friend is seeking to codify those views into a remit. The Minister’s response is that that is inappropriate because Parliament would then be taking on the responsibility that he wants to arrogate entirely to himself as a Minister.

Lord Callanan: Of course Parliament should express its view—but there are a number of ways in which it can do so.
Given that the next grouping on the Order Paper covers approval of the withdrawal agreement, I shall not prejudge that discussion by going into further detail here. That is part of the reason why we have sought to be as transparent as we can while protecting our negotiating position. Noble Lords will, I hope, acknowledge that this is a difficult balance to strike. But they will also note the information contained in speeches by the Prime Minister and other Ministers, in the large number of papers the Government have now published, ranging from White Papers to the raft of position papers on various areas, and in the papers for the negotiations themselves. Most recently, of course, we have also just published our draft text for the implementation period.

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem: Access to information does not constitute the proper exercise of sovereignty.

Lord Callanan: Having access to that information helps to inform the views of parliamentarians for their many speeches and committee appearances. On top of these publications, and the legislation we have introduced, the Government have further sought to facilitate scrutiny through the frequent making of oral Statements, the timetabling of debates in both Houses in various forms, and through appearing frequently at a range of Select Committees. Of course, we have not covered every subject or satisfied every member of every committee with our answers to every question, but noble Lords should be in no doubt that there has been more parliamentary scrutiny of EU exit than there can have been of anything else in the history of our modern committee system. That is right and proper, and we support it as well as we can. In order to pay tribute to the wide-ranging debate, I hope noble Lords will be patient as I seek to set out, relatively briefly, the Government’s position on these various issues, many of which will be key parts of the wider negotiations on the future economic partnership.
First, on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, raised in Amendment 144, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, the Government have already stated that they will seek to agree a continued system of mutual recognition as part of the future economic partnership. This system will form part of the wider negotiations underpinning trade in services. The joint report from the first phase already includes provisions on the recognition of professional qualifications which apply to UK nationals already resident in the EU at the specified date and, of course, EU nationals in the UK on that date. Those provisions will be included in the withdrawal agreement to provide clarity and security to the individuals affected.
On Amendment 147A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and ably supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, the Government absolutely recognise the value of sport to the UK and are determined to ensure that our professional sports sector continues to flourish after we leave the EU. The   Government also recognise and celebrate the value of international co-operation on professional and non-professional sporting issues. We are very keen to continue and deepen our excellent working relationships both with the EU collectively and with individual EU countries bilaterally on sports co-operation.

Lord Adonis: Will the Minister answer the crucial point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan: will there be free movement of horses around the European Union after Brexit?

Lord Callanan: I am sure that it will be at the forefront of our negotiation priorities, given the close interest that many noble Lords have taken in this vital national issue.
In response to Amendment 145, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, I reiterate that this Government have committed to maintaining high standards of consumer protection, delivering the stability that consumers need to continue to make purchases and a level playing field in trade with the EU—at the very seminar to which she referred, I believe that my ministerial colleague, Robin Walker, was present to set out the Government’s position. I myself have met Which? in Bristol on a number of occasions, and we will continue to engage with consumer organisations. We start from a strong position of long-standing co-operation on the effective enforcement of consumer protection laws, and it is essential that the UK through this Bill is able to ensure that UK consumer protections continue uninterrupted at the point we exit the European Union.
Amendment 147, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is rightly concerned with food standards. The UK has world-leading standards of food safety and quality backed up by a rigorous legislative framework. The Bill will ensure that we are able to maintain those high standards once the UK leaves the European Union. The Government are proud of our high standards of food safety, and these will not be watered down when we leave the EU. Maintaining safety and public confidence in the food we all eat is a high priority for the Government, and any future trade deal must work for UK farmers, businesses and consumers.
A number of EU agencies, such as the European Food Safety Authority referred to in Amendment 184 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, have been established to support EU member states and their citizens. May I say how pleased I am to see the noble Lord in his place today? We missed him very much in our debates on Monday evening, with his great insights on our issues.

Oh!

Lord Callanan: I may regret that.

Lord Adonis: I am not sure I missed the noble Lord quite so much.

Lord Callanan: Touché, as they say.
We are committed to exploring with the EU the terms on which the UK could remain part of EU agencies. However, our future relationship with the EU and arrangements with regards to agencies such as the food safety authority are still to be determined and  are the subject of ongoing negotiations. I would give the noble Lord the same response to his comments on the RASFF system.

Lord Rooker: Is it possible to have an answer to the only question that I asked? Are we going to stay a member of the rapid alert food and feed system? If we do not, we are in real trouble. I cannot see the arrangements for that—nobody ever talks about it—but it is pretty crucial. Are we going to stay in that system?

Lord Callanan: I cannot give an absolute guarantee that we will; it is a matter for the negotiations. However, I can certainly tell the noble Lord that we see the value of it, and it is one of the many EU agencies and systems that we will seek to continue to collaborate with.
In response to Amendment 146, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, whose illness I was sorry to hear about, and Amendment 147, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I can say that the Government want to seek the best possible outcome for the UK’s creative industries following the negotiations with the EU. In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, we are considering all our options for participation in future EU funding programmes, including the Creative Europe programme.
As the Prime Minister has already made clear, the UK will not be part of the EU’s digital single market, which will continue to develop after our withdrawal from the EU. This is a fast-evolving, innovative sector in which the UK is a world leader.
In response to Amendment 147C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who has yet again spoken very effectively on this topic, as she did on Monday evening, the Government fully recognise the central role that transport will play in supporting our new trading relationships as we leave the EU. As I set out in my response on Monday, our ambition for transport is to maintain and develop the current levels of transport connectivity between the UK and the EU to underpin our future trading relationship.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, asked me about aviation agreements. She is of course correct to say that all worldwide aviation agreements are concluded on a bilateral basis, as are most of our existing aviation agreements. We benefit from a number of these as part of the single sky policy through our membership of the EU and we are currently discussing replacing those agreements with the countries concerned.

Lord Berkeley of Knighton: Listening to the Minister, it occurs to me that this group of amendments endorses almost precisely what he is saying, so are the Government going to accept them?

Lord Callanan: I think I have made clear that we are not going to accept them because we do not want our negotiating position to be constrained by them. We want to be as flexible as possible in the negotiations.
As I was saying, the UK will also seek to continue to collaborate with EU and international agencies to maintain critical safety and regulatory arrangements.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 227BF, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Ministers and officials recognise that vehicle type approval can be a key enabler in such international trade and that the automotive industry in the UK and across the EU wants to be able to plan for future production and development with certainty at the earliest possible stage.

Lord Patten of Barnes: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply, but could he comment on a point made by my noble friend Lord Moynihan on competition policy and state aid? Will he remind the House what the Prime Minister said in the Mansion House speech about the Government’s attitude to competition policy and state aid? As I recall it, she said that we want to stay in that domain of policy. Can the Minister confirm that from the Dispatch Box today?

Lord Callanan: The Prime Minister did indeed refer to these important level playing field issues and said that we do not want to see a significant diminution of standards in these areas.

Baroness Ludford: If I recall, the Prime Minister promised binding commitments in the area of state aid and competition, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for reminding me of that element of the speech. The Minister tells us that he does not want to be constrained in the negotiations, but has not the Prime Minister already constrained the negotiations by accepting binding commitments in the area of competition law and by using the phrase “strong commitments”—apparently she was banned from saying “binding commitments”—with regard to regulatory alignment?

Lord Callanan: I will allow the Prime Minister’s words to speak for themselves.
It is in the interests of consumers and industry in both the UK and the EU to maintain the freest and most frictionless trade possible in vehicles and automotive products after exit.
I apologise that have I spoken at length about issues of constitutional significance, but—

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, the Minister seems to be reaching the end of his remarks. In replying to matters raised on the individual areas of transport, sport and so on, he has simply ignored the fact that most of those who spoke to these areas talked about the need for rapid movement of people, rapid access and no impediment to such movements. Could he perhaps say something about that? At the moment, the Government seem to have a blank sheet in front of them on that. We have not been told a single thing about the immigration rules that will apply after 29 March 2019—not one word has been said other than that it is going to take a lot longer for the Government to consult everyone before they can tell us what they are doing. All the areas that have been referred to in the debate this morning involve the movement of people. Will the Minister please try to fill that out a little?

Lord Callanan: I fear that I will disappoint the noble Lord yet again. It is of course a vital subject. We are currently formulating our proposals. It will of course be a matter for negotiation, but the Home Office will, I believe, set out in a White Paper later this year how a future immigration system might work.

Lord Cormack: I am most grateful to my noble friend. I have heard every word of this debate and have refrained from taking part because the case was being made so splendidly by everybody who was. Quite honestly, I say with due respect to my noble friend, appreciating the difficulty of his task, that all he has presented to the House is a stone wall. Frankly, this is not good enough.

Lord Callanan: I can only apologise for disappointing my noble friend. Of course, we take very different views on the issue of our EU withdrawal, so perhaps he will forgive me on this occasion for not agreeing with him.

Baroness Altmann: I thank my noble friend for giving way. Can he confirm that he said that the Government want to remain flexible about belonging to the rapid response and alert system which governs public health, public food safety and feed standards? It would seem to me that that is not something that the country or Parliament would think was an issue one could be flexible about. We need to be in that arrangement, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, so vividly explained.

Lord Callanan: I apologise to the noble Baroness, but I do not think I used the word “flexible” in respect of that agency. I said that the agency does some valuable work, as do a number of other EU agencies, and that is one matter that we need to discuss.

Lord Rooker: Will the Minister accept that it is not an agency? Get briefed. Have a look at the annual report of RASFF. It is a 24/7 system that is incredibly simple. That is why it works. We are either in it to give notifications or to receive notifications. You cannot be half in and half out. I should have thought this was non-negotiable, to be honest.

Lord Callanan: The noble Lord is right: it is not an agency. I was referring to the food safety agency. As I have said, the system, or whatever we want to call it, does good work, we value our participation in it and it is one of the things that we will want to raise as an urgent priority in the negotiation, as will be our participation in a number of agencies mentioned by the Prime Minister.
I am sure that noble Lords will return to this debate at Report, and I am more than willing to engage closely with any noble Lords who wish to talk about these issues in the interim. I hope—I suspect that I have not—that I have helped to allay some of noble Lords’ concerns in this debate and that the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Amendment 144 (to Amendment 142) withdrawn.
Amendments 145 to 147C (to Amendment 142) not moved.

Lord Monks: My Lords, I thank all the contributors to this debate. Amendment 142 was love bombed by many noble Lords with extra amendments raising important points which deserved airing and have received consideration, so we provided a vehicle for a lot of other important issues. At times, I was concerned that the central point—what the noble Lord, Lord Lea, called “the architecture”—was getting lost in the specifics that were being raised. We were brought back to those key central points very ably by my co-signatories, the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and the noble Lords, Lord Lea and Lord Campbell. By the way, to remind everyone, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, was a distinguished Olympian in his own right. We had references earlier to our Olympic heroes around the House.
The central point is about the role of Parliament. Is Parliament a bystander while the Government concoct a position and take it to negotiate the future relationships? Most people are sceptical about the way in which it will be received in Brussels. We wait to see what will happen, but are we passive, or do we try to exert some influence? In other words, do we take back control? Do we assert the sovereignty of this House and the House of Commons?
As one of the mothers of all Parliaments—perhaps the mother, although that is disputed by Iceland and one or two other places—do we just stand by and watch this being done with muddle and fumble, a word I used earlier, when we come to construct the negotiating position?
There is no doubt that we will return to this issue as the Bill progresses. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 142 withdrawn.
Amendments 148 and 149 not moved.

Amendment 150

Moved by Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
150: Clause 9, page 7, line 9, at end insert—“( ) The statute provided for by subsection (1) must include the terms of the withdrawal agreement and make provision for any transitional arrangements which have been negotiated within or alongside the withdrawal agreement.( ) In addition to the statute provided for by subsection (1), the Minister of the Crown must, as a further precondition of making regulations under subsection (1), seek interim approval for the withdrawal agreement by means of motions in both Houses of Parliament, with such motions to be voted on, so far as practicable, before the European Parliament votes on the withdrawal agreement.”

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: My Lords, I move Amendment 150, which also appears in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, Lord Hannay, and Lord Patten, and shall speak more broadly about the objective which, in the mix, these various amendments seek to achieve.
Amendment 150 is perhaps the most modest in the group. It would put into statute the Prime Minister’s promise that the withdrawal agreement would be voted on in both Houses, before a similar—albeit more serious—vote in the European Parliament. Why “more serious”? It is because the European Parliament has to agree the deal or it can go no further. MEPs have a veto, whereas a mere Motion in either or both Houses this side of the water would have no statutory force.
In theory—in law, if not in politics—either or both Houses could say “nay” and the Prime Minister could still say “yea” and sign up. Or the Prime Minister could even, for whatever reason, fail to table a Motion in either or both Houses. We should at the very least write this into law. But the truth is that we must go further than this, along the lines suggested in other amendments, such as that in the name of my noble friend Lord Liddle.
Our amendments cover three specific areas: first, approval by Parliament of the draft withdrawal Bill, prior to the European Parliament vote, plus a procedure for the Commons deciding what to do should our Parliament decline to approve; secondly, approval by Parliament of the final agreement, including the framework for our future relationship and the transition arrangements, plus a procedure for the Commons to decide what to do if Parliament declines approval; and finally, preventing the Government walking away from the talks with no deal without the consent of Parliament and enabling the Commons to decide what should happen if MPs disagree with the Government.
In case anyone thinks that the no-deal scenario has gone away, just last week the Foreign Secretary was still saying that leaving without a deal holds no terrors and that the UK would do very well on World Trade Organisation terms, despite everything we hear from manufacturers and exporters about duties and red tape, the possibility of border posts in Ireland, and of Calais facing 30-mile tailbacks with potential food shortages if we end up with mandatory customs and sanitary checks at the French ferry terminal. Parliament must keep the Government’s feet to the fire and ensure more sensible judgments than Mr Johnson’s guide to negotiations.
It is not just this side of the Committee, nor the various noble Lords who have put their names to the amendments in this group, who want the outcome of the Government’s negotiations to be put to Parliament for endorsement. John Major, who knows a thing or two about negotiating treaties as well as about Parliament, has said that there,
“must be a decisive vote, in which Parliament can accept or reject the final outcome or send the negotiators back to seek improvements, or order a referendum … That is what parliamentary sovereignty means ... No one can truly know what ‘the will of the people’ may then be. So, let parliament decide”.
I might not quite share his view about a referendum, but I do share his view that it is for Parliament, not the Government, to decide on the outcome of the negotiations.  That is what the sovereignty of Parliament is all about and it is vital on this issue because of its long-term implications. We need to ensure that the Government, at every stage of the way, remain very aware that it is not just the divided views in the Cabinet that must be satisfied, but Parliament on behalf of the people.
During the Article 50 Bill, this House voted overwhelmingly for a “meaningful vote” for Parliament. We will ensure that this demand is put into this Bill. I hope the Minister will give an undertaking that the Government will accept an amendment on Report to make that demand a reality. I beg to move.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, my name is to this amendment. I think most of us would agree that Clause 9 as it stands is simply not fit for purpose or constitutionally acceptable. It leaves it to Ministers to decide and implement whatever our divided and chaotic Government have by then asked for and managed to negotiate with the rest of the EU. I find it astonishing that the Government have failed to set out their negotiating preferences 18 months after the referendum and 12 months before the proposed exit day.
In six days in Committee we have had a process of discovery about the number of issues on which the Government do not have a coherent view. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has argued that the Government are protecting their negotiating position. It seems to me they are rather protecting their nakedness on much of it as they do not have a coherent position. In the speech he just made he said that they do not want to have their negotiating position constrained. The Government have themselves produced a number of red lines that constrain their negotiating position. Parliament must be allowed to constrain their negotiating position in other ways. Every day in Committee and on almost every subject we discover more issues that are important to Britain’s prosperity and security on which the Government remain confused and unclear about what their preferences are.
The Prime Minister’s speech the other week was a major step forward. She moved to recognise that we need to maintain in a number of areas that she specified—but only a few—close relations with the European Union. The Luxembourg Prime Minister’s comment on her speech was entirely appropriate: the United Kingdom now intends to move from a position where it is inside the EU with a number of opt-outs to one in which it is outside the EU with a large number of opt-ins. Parliament would wish to have a view on that. What we heard in the first debate this morning was: how many of these opt-ins do the Government wish to have? They must have a view on that and they ought to share it with Parliament. They need to share it with their European Union partners. It is not a negotiating position on which we wish to maintain flexibility.
Given all of that, it is all the more important for Parliament to have a meaningful and coherent vote  on a package—or the absence of one—well before  the prescribed exit date is reached. That is what Amendment 150 and the others in this group talk about, in one way or another. The Government seem to be more concerned about negotiations within the Conservative Party than with the long-term national interest of the country. We parliamentarians, in both  Houses, therefore have to be the guardians of the national interest, and that requires substantial changes to Clause 9.

Lord Cormack: My name is on the second amendment in this group, Amendment 151. I am most grateful to my noble friends Lord Balfe and Lady Verma and the noble Lord, Lord Reid, for adding their names to it.
I have become increasingly depressed and disturbed with every day that we are facing this Bill, particularly because my noble friend—whom I totally respect—is so fervently on the Brexit side that he does not seem to be able to grasp the importance of the points that are being made about the sovereignty of Parliament. In the Lord Speaker’s corridor, on the wall opposite what the Americans euphemistically call a comfort station, is a row of cartoons. One of them concerns Queen Caroline. Most noble Lords will know that she had a somewhat unfortunate relationship with her husband, George IV, and was locked out of the abbey for the coronation, but she was the idol and darling of the people. The cartoon refers to her as “Britain’s best hope”, and “England’s sheet anchor”. That sums up, in a phrase, the attitude of many of those who have embraced the Brexit cause.
But where are the details? Where is the substance? The important point of this amendment, as of the one previously moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is that it wants to give Parliament centrality. Indeed, it is building, constructively, upon the one amendment that was carried in another place and was most eloquently moved by my right honourable friend Dominic Grieve. I think he would accept, as would most of your Lordships, that that put down a marker but did not guarantee a position. This amendment, similar to the one eloquently moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, would build on that and rectify the position. It calls for Parliament to approve the final terms, by statute, before they are referred to the European Parliament and would guarantee Parliament a meaningful say on the withdrawal agreement at a meaningful, realistic, sensible time. There is no point in merely going through the motions if Parliament is not going to have a proper opportunity to deliver a verdict at a time when something can be done about it. It builds on Amendment 7—as my right honourable friend Dominic Grieve’s amendment was numbered in the other place—to ensure that Parliament has ample time for consideration of whatever agreement is reached. At the moment, there is not a sufficient guarantee that Parliament will have that time to examine the agreement before the European Parliament does so. In effect, we are also building on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, earlier today.
I want to be brief, because we had a long debate on the first group of amendments. I am delighted that my second amendment, Amendment 199, is a wholly Conservative amendment, because the other signatories are my noble friends Lord Balfe, Lady Verma again and Lord Deben. In this amendment, we are saying, as Conservatives who believe fundamentally that the nation is making a mistake but we want to rescue as much as we can, that a no-deal outcome is not acceptable. It aims to ensure that if Parliament fails to endorse the proposed agreement, the UK will continue with the  existing arrangements and relationship with the European Union, and it will require the Government to seek an extension of Article 50 so that negotiations can continue.
Over the past 18 months and more, we have seen that untangling the United Kingdom from the European Union is proving far more difficult than even many of the exuberant Brexiteers believed. Indeed, I have had one or two of them in your Lordships’ House confess that to me. Although they do not resile from their commitment, they say that yes, it is more difficult. Far more questions than answers have been thrown up, far more difficulties than opportunities have been revealed.
The Government must at all times be answerable to Parliament, and Parliament has a duty, because it is answerable to the people, to express its views in a meaningful and binding vote. At the moment, it is not clear what the consequences would be if Parliament rejected the deal. Amendment 199 offers a far more sensible way forward than a mere take it or leave it vote, and it does not contradict the referendum. To say that we must continue to strive for a better deal is not cancelling out what people call the will of the people. It is saying to the Government what I often used to write on reports when I was a schoolmaster: “Try harder. Keep at it”.
No one in this country, however they voted on 23 June 2016, voted to make either themselves or the nation poorer. No one voted to reduce the influence of our country in the world. These amendments, and the others, give a chance for Parliament to assert its proper position in the constitution of the nation, and I hope they will have strong support.

Lord Reid of Cardowan: My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 151, courtesy of my noble friend Lord Adonis, who is moving the next amendment. Amendment 151, in a word, is about sovereignty. That word is much used, much abused, perhaps overused, but anyone who lacks the feeling that the sovereignty of Parliament is in doubt need only, I fear, reread the first section of the Minister’s response at the end of the previous group of amendments. We are not speaking about the theory of sovereignty, abstract sovereignty, sovereignty as a slogan on the side of a bus, it is what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, referred to earlier as the practical application of sovereignty. That is what is supposed to be at the root of this whole debate.
When I spoke in the debate on the Bill’s Second Reading, I said that it was the responsibility of this House to make absolutely sure that the other House in particular—the elected House—had the ability not just to accept or reject but to shape, to mould, to compromise, to send back, because it is in that House, above all, that sovereignty lies. This amendment underlines that sentiment, as it seeks to ensure that the meaningful vote that was voted into this Bill by the other House comes to Parliament in a meaningful timeframe.
It is worth reminding ourselves why the amendment proposed by Dominic Grieve and accepted by the other House—Amendment 7—was so important. Whatever the Minister may now believe, Clause 9 of this Bill contains the power needed for Ministers to  implement the withdrawal agreement. However, the Government had originally sought sweeping and virtually untrammelled powers to implement whatever they thought “appropriate”, with no substantive reference back to Parliament, no real further scrutiny in either House and without the consent of legislators. The Minister will forgive us if we are sceptics whenever we are assured that the sovereignty of Parliament is respected by the Government. The track record does not suggest that to be the case, especially when a citizen had to go to the High Court in order to impose or reassert the sovereignty of Parliament.
As noble Lords are aware, the Government failed to convince MPs that carte blanche should be given to them in this way, and the Government were defeated on the amendment referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, which proposed that the powers in Clause 9 could be exercised only,
“subject to the prior enactment of a statute by Parliament approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union”.
That amendment—known as Amendment 7 in the House of Commons—was passed and is now part of the Bill. That process started outside Parliament through the courts in order to reassert the primacy of parliamentary sovereignty. It means that the Government have to give both Houses of Parliament a legislative opportunity to vote on the final deal. For the purposes of my argument, I will refer to this as the Amendment 7 statute.
Let us remember the Government’s response to the defeat in the Commons. We now know that Ministers were hugely disappointed that this change was ever made. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU maintain now that they will place a Motion before the Commons to gain in-principle approval for any deal reached. We do not know what options—if any—such a Motion would contain or when it would be brought to Parliament. We know that it would be a Motion only, with no statutory effect.
In a Written Statement on 13 December—the day Mr Grieve’s amendment was being debated—the Government stated that they would also bring forward a withdrawal and implementation Bill to implement “the major policies” of the withdrawal agreement. But again, we do not know when that Bill will be brought to Parliament. I hope that such a Bill will fulfil the requirements of the Amendment 7 statute fully and that the Government do not offer instead a rushed, after-the-fact rubber-stamp exercise.

Lord Balfe: Can I point out to the noble Lord that it is of course possible that the European Parliament’s consent could be given only on the basis that the Houses of Parliament had had a valid vote? It could withhold its consent to the agreement on the grounds that there had been no valid vote in the UK Parliament.

Lord Reid of Cardowan: With the noble Lord’s usual foresight he has accurately pre-empted what I am going on to say. That is precisely the point. The Government’s reassurances were not—for that reason among others—enough for the House of Commons  and it proceeded to put the requirement of the statute in the Bill. My point about that is that, from beginning to end, that process was not the voluntarism of the Government reasserting the sovereignty of the House of Commons or Parliament; it was forced on them first by the courts and secondly by the House of Commons itself.
Further safeguards are needed and this amendment seeks to give one by ensuring that the Amendment 7 statute will be brought forward to Parliament in a fair, appropriate and, above all, timely manner. As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, alluded to, as it stands, Britain could possibly face a scenario whereby the Government strike a sub-optimal deal with the European Union, then rely entirely on an “accept or reject” Motion in the House of Commons and delay the Amendment 7 statute and the regulations necessary to implement the withdrawal agreement right up until the 11th hour. This could take Parliament to the cliff edge and leave the legislature with no real alternative option. This would clearly not be in the spirit of the Amendment 7 statute which the Commons have sought, but, in the light of the Government’s record on the issue of parliamentary sovereignty, there are simply insufficient guarantees written into Clause 9 to ensure that we will see this statutory process in good time.
By ensuring that the Amendment 7 statute is placed before Parliament as soon as a deal is done—and every effort must be made to enact it prior to the parallel ratification stage in the European Parliament—we would enhance the rights of MPs and Peers to have such a “meaningful vote” in a meaningful way and at a meaningful time. We have been told time and again that Brexit is a matter of Britain taking back control. It is so loose in the current clause that it actually allows a huge gap in that control. That is what this amendment addresses. It would be preposterous if Ministers accepted a deal and UK legislatures were watching the televised proceedings from the European Parliament discussing our withdrawal agreement before this Parliament had the opportunity to make a decision itself. That is precisely what this amendment is about.
The Amendment 7 statute, passed in the House of Commons, is the only viable context in which MPs and Members of this House can express their views on the deal, whether it should be rejected or, crucially, whether the Prime Minister should be requested to seek different or improved terms. In its simplest terms, this amendment is a protection for the will of the House of Commons, which it has already said it wants. If the Government are truly committed to a meaningful say for the British Parliament, if they truly believe in the British Parliament taking back control, surely they can accept this amendment today. I hope that they will.

Lord Wigley: My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 190 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno. I warmly support what has already been said on the important amendments in this group. My amendment is framed to ensure that it is quite clear in the Bill what the implications would be of Parliament not approving the terms of a deal negotiated by the Government. If there is to be a  meaningful vote by Parliament as opposed to a take-note Motion, which would be a total travesty of democracy on such a vital issue, then there are three possible outcomes. First, Parliament could endorse the terms of Brexit negotiated by the Government, which would clearly mean the UK leaving the EU on those terms. Secondly, Parliament could reject the terms negotiated. Thirdly, Parliament could resolve to refer the issue back to the people for a confirmatory referendum, something which I believe is raised in later amendments. I am excluding, for the purposes of this debate, the possibility that Parliament could tell the Government to return to the negotiating table and come back with a better agreement—a course of action which appears to be the subject of Amendment 199 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.
Amendment 190 is essentially a reset amendment, meaning that if there is no deal at the end of the negotiating period then the UK falls back on to the status quo terms. On 7 February 2017 Mr David Jones, the MP for Clwyd West, then a Brexit Minister, said during a debate on the Article 50 Bill:
“There will be a meaningful vote. The vote will be either to accept the deal that the Government will have achieved—I repeat that the process of negotiation will not be without frequent reports to the House—or for there to be no deal. Frankly, that is the choice that the House will have to make. That will be the most meaningful vote that one could imagine”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/17; col. 273.]
MPs should not be put in a position where they can vote either for a really bad deal result from the negotiations or in a way that delivers a no deal outcome. There must be a reset alternative for MPs. In circumstances where the deal secured by the Government is transparently inadequate there must be an option provided for the UK to continue being in the EU on existing terms. If that is not an available option it is essentially telling MPs to vote with a gun to their head.
Since the Minister spoke the words that I have quoted, the UK Government have provided more information on exactly what a “meaningful vote” will entail. It will be a resolution in both Houses, comprising, therefore, two agreements. It will be held before the European Parliament votes on its resolution and as soon as possible after negotiations are concluded. But I still get the impression that it is a “like it or lump it” choice. That does not make it a meaningful vote in any sense. If there is a no deal outcome then even more so must there be our meaningful vote in Parliament whereby MPs can reject the no deal catastrophe—the cliff-edge scenario—and be enabled to vote to retain the status quo. Falling on to WTO rules would be catastrophic for the UK, particularly for Wales, as it happens: the UK Government’s own impact assessment shows that under those terms Welsh GDP would drop 10%. This is the worst situation in any part of the United Kingdom, but it is bad for the whole of the United Kingdom.
Given the disproportionate impact of leaving the EU on a no deal basis or on terms that are unacceptably bad for manufacturing, agriculture and all the services, will the Minister also confirm that the devolved legislatures will be allowed to scrutinise, comment on and vote on any final deal put to Parliament? If Parliament is not to be allowed a meaningful vote along the lines that I  have outlined, that only increases the pressure for the final package to be referred back to the people for their endorsement or, indeed, their rejection.

Viscount Hailsham: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 216 and 217 in my name. I will come to the detail in a moment, but for present purposes suffice it to say that these amendments, individually and collectively, would give to Parliament—here I acknowledge the primacy of the House of Commons—a decisive and conclusive say over the outcome of the Brexit negotiations. It is for Parliament, not the Government, to determine whether we leave the European Union and, if so, on what terms. If Parliament thinks it appropriate that that decision should be tested by a second referendum that would be wholly appropriate. These conclusions are wholly in accord with our constitution and history, and are, in my view, quite unchallengeable.
I acknowledge that the amendments might be clumsily drafted; I am no parliamentary draftsman. So I say to your Lordships that if others on Report draft different positions that are more happily phrased but achieve the same purpose, I shall be pleased to rally behind them.
My purpose now is to explain in greater detail the nature of these amendments and the reasons behind them. I turn to the text of the two amendments. They are inevitably cast in the statutory language and I do not want to test your Lordships’ patience by going through each clause. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I summarise them. My intention is that Parliament shall have the decisive say over the outcome of the negotiations. In that determination, the House of Commons must have primacy. Its decisions must be conclusive. This House does not have the authority to reject Brexit—only the Commons can do that—but we can encourage and facilitate that process. That is what these amendments enable.
Taken separately or collectively, the amendments enable Parliament to approve or reject Brexit whether or not terms have been agreed. They enable Parliament to require the withdrawal of the Article 50 notification and the UK to remain within the European Union, which is indeed my preferred outcome. If Parliament thinks it appropriate, these amendments provide for a holding of a referendum either to test public opinion or to ratify a parliamentary decision. That is wholly correct. Most importantly, the amendments enshrine and protect the primacy of the House of Commons. Without going into detail, although I happily would, the method is set out in subsections (7) and (8) of Amendment 216 and subsections (5) and (6) of Amendment 217. These provisions are based on the Parliament Acts, suitably modified to deal with resolutions.
I will explain the differences between Amendments 216 and 217. Both are designed to ensure full parliamentary control over the outcome of these negotiations. Amendment 216 is simple and is based on a cross-party amendment which was tabled during the European Union (Notification of withdrawal) Bill. Its basic attraction is that it has achieved all-party endorsement. Amendment 217 is a little more complex. It is more explicit in its provisions for the withdrawal of the  Article 50 notification: it enables the holding of a second referendum and deals more fully with what should be done in the event of no deal. However, in substance these amendments are designed to achieve the same result: namely that these decisions are to be taken by Parliament, primarily the House of Commons, and not by the Government.
Let me briefly explain the fundamental justification for these amendments. I believe that Brexit is the single most disastrous peacetime decision that we have taken since at least the end of the 19th century when we failed to offer effective home rule to southern Ireland. Indeed, I am inclined to think that Brexit is even graver than that. I do not think that the referendum of 2016 was authority for Britain to leave the European Union, whatever the terms or in the absence of terms. The electorate neither could nor did know what the outcome of the negotiations would be. In my view, the proper interpretation of the referendum is that it was an instruction to the Government to negotiate the best exit terms that could be achieved. However, that leaves open the fundamental question of who will determine whether the terms, or the absence of terms, are an acceptable basis for leaving the European Union. In my view, the only proper answer to that question is that it is for Parliament to make that decision, and, if Parliament thinks it appropriate, the decision should be tested or ratified by a decision of the electorate expressed in a second referendum.
In most political careers, and certainly my own, party and national interests are not seen to be dramatically divergent. Occasionally, they are. The debate in 1940 which led to the fall of Chamberlain is perhaps the most dramatic of recent examples. Going back in history, the decision of Sir Robert Peel in 1846 to repeal the corn laws was another. I happen to believe that we now face another such moment. None of us should put party interest before our assessment of what is right for our country. Our decisions may lead to the fragmentation of existing party structures—I hope not—but our duty is to put our country first. Whatever the cost to our respective parties, we must give Parliament the decisive say on the outcome of these negotiations. That is the purpose of my two amendments and I commend them to this Committee.

Lord Patten of Barnes: This debate should be what I think is called a “no-brainer” for anybody who believes in parliamentary sovereignty. I do not want to add to what has already been said on the subject. I find myself in the curious position, for the first time in my life, of beginning a speech by quoting the Prime Minister of Luxembourg. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, pointed out, his description of the—in many respects admirable—Mansion House speech was spot on: here we are, going down this flower-strewn path, from a position where we were members of the European Union with loads of opt-outs to one where we want to be outside the European Union with as many opt-ins as you can get on the back of a lorry. It is called a “bespoke” deal. I do not have many bespoke suits—most of mine are off the peg and on to the floor—and I think that it is more an “off the peg and on to the floor” deal.
However, it was after the Mansion House speech that the most significant question that anyone asked the Prime Minister was raised. After questions from all the “trusties”, a German journalist got up and asked the Prime Minister: “Is it all worth it?” The Prime Minister, perhaps excessively honestly, did not reply directly but just pointed out that we had had a referendum which had to be honoured. I think that some others, including some of her supporters, would have put the point rather differently. They would have said that it is of course worth it because—to use a phrase which has occurred again and again in this debate—we are going to take back control. I think that most of them would at least in principle have conceded that taking back control means this Parliament—the House of Commons and the House of Lords—having control.
I have been struck as we have sat through these debates by the elephant in the room; the person who in many respects is more responsible for us being here and having this debate than anybody else: the regularly occasional leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party, Mr Farage. When Mr Farage talks about taking back control and when some of our tabloid newspapers talk about it, they do not mean Parliament having that control—they mean them; they mean a populist way of running this country. I spent some time this morning looking at Dicey—I have not done that since I was an undergraduate. I looked too at what I think is the best book on the rule of law, by that great jurist and great man, Tom Bingham—I recommend it to noble Lords. I read again what he says about parliamentary sovereignty—the keystone of our constitution. When people talk about taking back control, what they should mean is Parliament having that control. When they talk about a “meaningful vote”, they should not mean a vote which does whatever they want. A meaningful vote does not mean that it cannot make any difference to the whole process of Brexit, which was more or less said the other day by the Secretary of State, David Davis —who had said that there would be a meaningful vote.
I hope that it is not unparliamentary for me to make this comparison, but the Secretary of State increasingly reminds me of a character in a PG Woodhouse novel, of whom it is said, “He’s like one of those people in a Tolstoy novel, living in those dreary birch woods, who’s just chopped up his wife, thrown the baby down the well, goes to the cupboard, opens the cupboard and finds that there’s no vodka in the bottle”. That is the position in which our negotiators are increasingly finding themselves.
On the constitution, the Secretary of State seemed to be absolutely clear: we must have a meaningful vote, but you cannot actually change what happens. It is important for this House to give an absolutely clear message that parliamentary sovereignty in our system is what happens in this House and, above all, in the House of Commons—I agree with what my noble friend Lord Hailsham said on this. This is an occasion when a lot of us will have to make speeches and say and do things which we never imagined we would have to in our political careers. I hope more people in future will take the advice of my noble friend Lord Hailsham and follow their conscience on this issue and assert the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.

Lord Beith: My Lords, I want to direct the Committee’s attention to the fact that in the process of defending this Parliament and trying to bring back control to it, we are in danger of legislating one of the worst set of Henry VIII powers that could possibly be imagined. They would enable the Government to change the Northern Ireland Act, the Scotland Act and any of a series of things, so long as they were matters that had been considered in the withdrawal agreement.
Having come from a position of wondering why Clause 9 was in the Bill at all, because these are all matters to do with the withdrawal agreement—we have not got one yet, so we cannot legislate for it—we are now in a situation where I am surprised that the Government want to keep it. A poison pill has been administered to it by a very helpful amendment in the other place. None of the powers which we will put on the statute book can be exercised until a piece of legislation on the withdrawal agreement has been passed. It is entirely useless from the Government’s point of view, but from the point of view of those of us who are trying to protect Parliament, it is the one place in which we have a guarantee that there has to be an Act of Parliament to complete this process—if we do, indeed, complete it.
The grouping suggests that this is where we consider clause stand part. I think it would be wrong to pass over what Clause 9 contains, without recognising that it is not what we should be putting on to the statute book at all, certainly not without knowing what the withdrawal agreement is and without therefore being able to circumscribe the powers to things which reasonably arise from it.
There are things that cannot be done under these powers which are specified in subsection (3) but an enormous range of things can be done if a Minister considers them appropriate for the purposes of implementing the withdrawal agreement. I will no longer be ready to turf Clause 9 out of the Bill, for the reason I gave. The Constitution Committee, when it considered it, thought that it was entirely inappropriate to have these powers at this stage. The stage at which we should have them, if at all, in modified form is in the withdrawal agreement Bill, and not before, but we have the compensation that the clause contains the guarantee that the process can go no further without another statute being passed in both Houses of Parliament.

Lord Liddle: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 196.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I think it is fairly reasonable as someone putting forward Amendment 150 that I should be allowed to speak.

Lord Liddle: My Lords, I just want to get Amendment 196 on the record, because it makes helpful points which should be taken into account by noble Lords when we come to devise a composite amendment on Report. That is why I am anxious to speak and I am sorry if I have upset the noble Lord, Lord Hannay.
We have had many excellent speeches. I think the three by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and my noble friend Lord Reid are among the best I have heard on this Bill and perhaps even since I have been a Member of this House. I fully support what they said.
The purpose of Amendment 196 is to build on the Grieve amendment that is now incorporated in the Bill. En passant I will say from this side of the House how much I respect the bravery of the Conservative MPs who voted for that amendment and put the national interest first. If they had not done that, a lot of the point of our proceedings would have been removed—so I respect them enormously.
The merits of Amendment 196—I will be very brief—are, first, that it specifies a date by which the Government have to produce their withdrawal agreement: 31 October 2018. That would prevent any attempt to bounce a last-minute decision through Parliament. Secondly, it attempts to deal with two eventualities: not just the eventuality of no agreement and no deal being reached in Brussels but also a failure on the part of the House of Commons to agree to and adopt the resolution that the Government will put forward seeking to endorse that agreement.
It does not give the House of Lords a veto. I agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said: these matters fundamentally have to be decided by the Commons. This amendment allows the Commons to consider a whole series of options, including the extension of Article 50.

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I agree very much with what he said about the speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Reid and Lord Patten, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham.
I am concerned about the point he is on now. Subsection (2)(b) of the clause proposed by Amendment 196 seems to me to open the possibility of a period after we have left the European Union before we have any agreement with it in respect of the terms of withdrawal. That would be an extremely dangerous legal vacuum.
One of the desirable features of the Mansion House speech was that we had no more nonsense about no deal being better than a bad deal. It was clear that the Prime Minister wished to do a deal. It is very important that, if we leave the European Union, we do so on the basis of agreement with it on the terms of our withdrawal. If not, our position with third countries would be impossible and they would be unable to do business with us until we had established a secure position with the European Union—and, of course, our position with the European Union would be pretty bad. So I agree with the spirit of this amendment—indeed, I agree with the spirit of all the amendments in this group—but it seems to me that there is a real danger lurking in the wording of subsection (b).

Lord Liddle: If the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, thinks there is a danger, we will have to look at it again because I so respect his judgment. I certainly do not want to create a legal vacuum; I want to see the possibility of an extension of Article 50 as one thing  that Parliament might do if it decided to reject the Motion on the withdrawal agreement. I also think that it would be appropriate for the Commons to decide on any other course—and certainly I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that a referendum would be a possibility in those circumstances. How can we possibly judge at this stage what those circumstances will be? We have to have in our amendment—while maintaining legal certainty—the possibility of the Commons being able to decide on a number of different things.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: One of the benefits of the Grieve amendment, as inserted, is that it refers to approving the “final” terms of withdrawal. Part of the problem we now face with an exit day in March 2019 is that the prospects of reaching a final and detailed agreement before then are receding day by day. So it appears to me—I read the Daily Mail every day and follow, as far as I can, what Jacob Rees-Mogg is saying—that the hard Brexiteers want to get us out with the vaguest possible interim agreement and do not mind about it. Parliament has not to allow that. Therefore, it is important to talk about the final and detailed terms of the agreement to be presented to Parliament before we leave, and it is something that we all need to ensure we have in this Bill.

Lord Liddle: I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is saying. That is why I think that the possibility of extending Article 50 is realistic, before one contemplates the possibility of a further referendum. The risk that we face at the moment is that the Government will seek to take us out of the European Union finally on the basis of a political declaration that will, frankly, contain mushy words that mean one thing to one set of people and another thing to another set of people.

Lord Lea of Crondall: Will my noble friend allow me to interrupt to check that I have understood what has been said in the last five minutes by both him and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr? As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said that we cannot have a vacuum and have to have what I would call a treaty. A treaty, in turn, has to be an agreed document. It cannot be just a piece of paper to say that we want to agree with each other; it has to fill the vacuum to which the noble Lord referred. Am I right in my understanding of what is being said?

Lord Liddle: My noble friend is making a good point, but I think that the vacuum that we potentially face is the risk of a vague political declaration that gives us absolutely no idea what the eventual economic relationship between Britain and the EU will be. In those political circumstances, one might want to say to the Government that we have to extend the period allowed under Article 50 and be given a much better idea of where this course that they are so in favour of is leading us. On that basis, we might then consider whether the final deal should be put to the people in a referendum. The risk is that this declaration will provide the opportunity for misleading the British public about what is involved.
That is all that I have to say. I am wholly in favour of all the amendments in this group and the sentiments behind them. It is wonderful that there is such support around the House for them, but we need to think through the precise terms of what I hope this House will eventually pass on Report.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords—

Lord Lisvane: My Lords—

Baroness Goldie: My Lords, the Chief Whip has asked me to indicate that there is some concern about the availability of facilities if we do not adjourn the Committee. I therefore propose that at this point we adjourn and I suggest that we resume after Questions have concluded.
House resumed.
Sitting suspended.

Death of a Member: Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde
 - Announcement

Lord Fowler: My Lords, I very much regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, on 13 March. On behalf of the House, I extend our sincere condolences to the noble Baroness’s family and all her friends.

Universal Credit: Free School Meals
 - Question

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect on Universal Credit work incentives of the recently announced proposals for passporting family entitlement to free school meals.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, the Department for Work and Pensions has been working closely with the Department for Education to support the delivery of their eligibility criteria for free school meals for universal credit claimants in England. When the Social Security Advisory Committee, which is independent of government, looked at this issue in 2012, it found that there was no rigorous research evidence to show that the provision of passported benefits acted as a work disincentive.

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. I would like to remind the Minister of the policy promise that was made in a White Paper back in 2010 when universal credit was  first introduced, and I want to put to her a question that relates to a statement made in the foreword by the then Secretary of State:
“Universal Credit will mean that people will be consistently and transparently better off for each hour they work and every pound they earn”.
Does the Minister accept that, under the proposals which are being brought forward, that proposition will no longer always be true?

Baroness Buscombe: The simple answer to the noble Lord is no: I do not accept that. I think it is important to dispel straightaway any potential misunderstanding of what we are doing to safeguard the free school meals system for the future. The Government’s purpose here is to ensure that the programme continues to reach the most disadvantaged households in a way that is consistent, simple and fair. As the rollout of universal credit continues, it is no longer fair to retain the temporary measure, which we always said was temporary, that allows all households in receipt of universal credit to access free school meals. That said, the new rules will ensure that the provision of meals continues to be targeted where it is needed most, with 50,000 more children expected to benefit by 2022 as compared with the previous benefits system.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett: My Lords, the noble Baroness has not actually answered the noble Lord’s question, so could she do so now? Can she also give an assurance that no one will be sanctioned if they are required to increase their earnings to the point which takes them over the eligibility limit and they lose their entitlement to free school meals as a result?

Baroness Buscombe: I have to take issue with the noble Baroness, because I feel that I have answered the question. I want to stress that the reality of this is that every child receiving free school meals now, and any child subsequently given free school meals while the universal credit rollout is under way, will have their entitlement protected until the end of the rollout or until the end of the child’s current phase of education, whichever is later. We want to ensure that, through the universal credit system, we are doing absolutely our best to give our young people the best possibilities in life; this is not the same as the old legacy benefits.

Baroness Sherlock: My Lords, perhaps I may put the question for the third time. At the moment, if someone reaches a certain level of income, they lose free school meals but at that point they gain working tax credit, which is worth much more. What the Government are proposing under universal credit is that, when a household’s earnings exceed a cash fixed point of £7,400 a year, once the system has been rolled out, a household in that situation will immediately lose free school meals for all of the kids. Someone could be offered an extra hour of work or a small pay rise and face the choice of either turning it down or accepting it and losing free school meals for all of their kids. While the Minister has said a great deal about the transitional protection during the rollout,  when the system beds down, is not the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, right that this will fly right in the face not only of the quote from Iain Duncan Smith, but of the whole point of universal credit—at such huge expense and great disruption?

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I heard quite a lot of what was said in another place yesterday, and I am afraid that quite a lot of it is misinformation. One only has to look at Channel 4’s FactCheck, which looked at the claims made by the Opposition about children losing free school meals and was clear that the Government are not taking free school meals from the 1 million children who currently get them. I quote the article directly:
“This is not a case of the government taking free school meals from a million children who are currently receiving them. It’s about comparing two future, hypothetical scenarios”,
both of which are more generous than the old benefits system.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, on what basis was it decided that the earnings threshold for eligibility in Northern Ireland would be double what it is in England? Is this because poor children in Northern Ireland are twice as malnourished as they are in England, or could it be political expediency?

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, it is not a question of political expediency. In fact, the earnings threshold in Scotland, introduced last August, is lower than what we propose to introduce in England. Let me also explain further, referring—as the noble Baroness opposite did—to the threshold. The £7,400 relates to earned income and does not include additional income through universal credit. Depending on its exact circumstances, a typical family earning around the threshold would have a total annual household income of between £18,000 and £24,000, but let us remember that if we allowed free school meals to continue beyond the transitional period when universal credit is rolled out, we would include parents earning over £40,000 or £50,000. Is that absolutely fair? Is that what noble Lords opposite want?

Bishop of Newcastle: My Lords, we have years of clear evidence that tackling child hunger improves outcomes at school and improves achievement and social mobility. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of these proposals on child hunger and on our investment in our children’s futures?

Baroness Buscombe: I thank the right reverend Prelate for her question. That is why we have chosen not to monetise free school meals; if we did, the benefits of a hot meal in the middle of the day could be lost for 1.1 million of the poorest children. That is because there would be a risk of children not getting the free school meal if it were just added to the rates for UC. We believe that the nutritional needs of children should be paramount. We therefore think it is right that free school meals should continue to be provided in the way we propose.

Lord Watts: My Lords, can the Minister explain why there is a different threshold in different parts of the union? Surely all children should be treated the same?

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, the issue is actually about ensuring that children receive the right treatment. There is not an issue about—

Answer the question.

Baroness Buscombe: I am seeking to answer the question. The devolved nations have decided on different thresholds for their own parts of the United Kingdom, but at the end of the day we want to ensure that we can target free school meals to those who need them. Let me also be clear that, throughout the current rollout of universal credit and until 2022, no parents of a child who currently gets free school meals will have to pay for their meals. It is either then or when they finish their primary or secondary education—whichever comes later.

Baroness Randerson: My Lords, I beg leave to ask—

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is it not clear—

Order!

Lord Tebbit: Is it not clear that there would be no point in devolved government unless devolved Governments were able to take different policy lines?

Earl Howe: My Lords, the next Question has been called.

Rural Bus Services
 - Question

Baroness Randerson: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they have taken to improve rural bus services.

Baroness Sugg: My Lords, buses are a vital part of our public transport system and the Government are committed to supporting them. They can be particularly important in rural areas, where many people depend on their local bus service, but no single solution will work for all rural areas. The Government are providing funding and powers, most recently through the Bus Services Act 2017, so that local authorities can work in partnership with local bus operators to identify and support services that best fit the needs of individual communities.

Baroness Randerson: My Lords, the rural bus network has been cut by 40% in the last 10 years, with further cuts planned, for example in Norfolk and Kent. Councils blame a £200 million shortfall when the Government reimburses them through the concessionary fares scheme. Many older people, as the Minister said, rely on this in isolated communities.   Will the Minister agree to review funding for concessionary fares and to look at funding for community transport to replace bus services where they are no longer provided?

Baroness Sugg: My Lords, last year the Government renewed our commitment to supporting older and disabled people. We recognise the importance of accessible and affordable transport and are therefore entirely committed to the concessionary fares. Through the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, local authorities are provided with the funding to meet their statutory obligations over concessionary travel. Bus operators are reimbursed on the basis that they are no worse off for carrying concessionary pass holders. We issue guidance to help local authorities administer that concession, consistent with that principle.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the statistics given by the noble Baroness opposite show that the Government’s efforts simply have not produced results? Does she accept that it is not just about the disabled and whoever, but also about social and financial exclusion? We do everything within urban areas—we have bus lanes and walking places for shopping, and we have Uber—but rural areas are becoming the vulnerable community through lack of government support for all services.

Baroness Sugg: My Lords, of course bus services are incredibly important in rural areas; we absolutely want to ensure that those communities are as well connected as they can be. I recognise the extra pressure placed on local authorities in more isolated areas. Where there is not enough demand for a bus route to be commercially viable in its own right, all local authorities have the power to subsidise bus services. Since 2014, we have devolved the bus service operators grant so we can pay up to £40 million directly to local authorities to help them support the services that their communities need.

Lord Snape: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the cutbacks of nearly 50% in local government finance from central government since 2010 have had some impact here? Has she any figures about the cutbacks in rural services in, for example, Conservative-controlled Surrey, which has already announced impending bankruptcy? Or even in Conservative-controlled Northamptonshire, which is in similar difficulties? Do the Government not accept any responsibility for these matters, or are they “devolved”, to quote the noble Lord opposite?

Baroness Sugg: My Lords I fully appreciate the pressure that local authorities are under in making difficult choices as a result of ongoing financial pressures. I commend them for providing the services they do, but we think local authorities are best placed to provide supported bus services, reflecting local needs within available budgets. As I said, we have devolved the £40 million of the bus service operators grant, but there are obviously extra costs in providing services for rural areas, so we are giving an extra £81 million to the most sparsely populated areas in the rural services delivery grant.

Lord Lisvane: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that rural bus services, which in our part of Herefordshire are wholly inadequate, can be the lifeblood of isolated, small rural communities? Does she further recognise that sustaining communities of that sort can avoid spending—possibly considerable spending—in other areas of public expenditure?

Baroness Sugg: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord that buses can be a lifeline in rural areas. The Bus Services Act, which I mentioned earlier, provides extra powers for local authorities to work with bus operators to improve the bus services in rural areas. We are also encouraging local authorities to deliver better rural services through efforts such as our Total Transport pilot schemes, which have explored ways of commissioning publicly funded transport so that services and funding are able to go further.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one issue that has a perverse result is concessionary fares in rural bus areas? People travel out of towns into rural areas and the concessionary fares camouflage much of the subsidy that goes to rural bus fares. We support concessionary fares but, when they were set up, the local councils were not given the funding to run the level of service that has come into effect.

Baroness Sugg: My Lords, as I said, we fully support the concessionary fare programme and we want to continue the £1 billion a year we spend through local authorities to guarantee that service. It certainly supports bus services and that is something we want to carry on with.

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I declare a former interest as the former chairman of London Buses. I agree with the noble Baroness that buses are a vital part of our community. They carry the poor, the old, the young and the sick. Labour would introduce regulations to designate and protect routes of critical community value, including those that serve local schools, hospitals and isolated settlements in rural areas. Why do the Government not copy those policies now?

Baroness Sugg: My Lords, decisions on providing bus services are devolved to local authorities and, as I have said, we think that is right. We support local authorities with the bus service operators grant, and will absolutely continue to do so. As well as the devolution of the £40 million, we are reviewing the rest of that money to see whether we can spend it better and allow local authorities to use it better. However, local authorities are best placed to understand what their communities need and deliver their services. They are also democratically accountable to the people they serve.

Meetings with Ministers
 - Question

Lord Storey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what checks are undertaken on individuals before they meet the Prime Minister or Cabinet ministers.

Lord Young of Cookham: My Lords, for national security reasons the Government do not comment on the specific security measures in place for the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers, including checks undertaken on individuals meeting them. As part of the Government’s transparency agenda, official ministerial meetings with external organisations are published each quarter. This provides scrutiny on the Government’s business.

Lord Storey: I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. At the Conservative black and white party, somebody paid £55,000 to spend a day with the Prime Minister and somebody paid £30,000 to have dinner with the Defence Secretary. What is the difference between the cash-for-questions scandal and cash for access? Is it not time that the Ministerial Code was strengthened to disallow such practices?

Lord Young of Cookham: My Lords, sadly I was not privileged to attend this important function but the noble Lord will know that fundraising events with party supporters are not new. I happen to have in front of me a copy of PR Week from 18 April 2011, when we were in coalition—doesn’t it seem a long time ago? It reported:
“The Liberal Democrats are offering lobbyists the opportunity to attend ‘exclusive dinners’ with Nick Clegg in return for an annual payment of £25,000 … In confidential documents obtained by PRWeek, Clegg calls for wealthy figures to get involved—regardless of their political persuasion. ‘You don’t have to be a Liberal Democrat to take part,’ he says. ‘In today’s politics, all are welcome’”.
I think it is important that no one is too pious on this subject.

Lord Watts: My Lords, that might be the case but it does not change the argument that has just been made. Is it right that people can buy access into the Government?

Lord Young of Cookham: Again, I am not sure that this dialogue will enhance public confidence in political parties, but Labour auctioned off a tennis match with Tony Blair in 2008. People could also buy at an auction the opportunity to become a character in an Alastair Campbell novel.
The noble Lord raises a serious issue. What is important is that Ministers adhere to the Ministerial Code and the standards set in public life. I have seen no evidence that any of those standards has been broken.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, is that not the most persuasive argument for sorting out the funding of political parties? Why has the noble Lord’s party always refused to come to a sensible agreement which would clean up politics?

Lord Young of Cookham: The noble Lord will know that for the past decade there have been genuine attempts to reach all-party consensus on the key issue of party funding. No such consensus was reached, which is why there has been no agreement to take it  forward, and the coalition Government did not think it right to take unilateral action on party funding. We remain open to discussions if there is a real possibility of a consensus. In the meantime, there is a Private Member’s Bill before the House, and I hope we might be able to make progress on a number of more minor issues—incremental measures of reform—where there is that consensus.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does my noble friend think that we could talk a little about whether the Labour Party should have accepted money from a fascist source recently? They were quite large sums of money, hundreds of thousands of pounds, from Mr Mosley to assist the office of the deputy leader of the Labour Party. We could have a chat about that some time.

Lord Young of Cookham: I am more than happy to answer questions on behalf of the Government or indeed my party. It is a matter for the Labour Party whether it decides to return the money received from Max Mosley.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: Will the Minister enlighten the House about whether, when the lucky winners of the prizes that were available at the black and white ball take up their prizes, there will be civil servants present?

Lord Young of Cookham: There will be due scrutiny of those who bid for the prizes. These are meetings that do not involve government property or government business but are undertaken by Ministers in their capacity as members of a political party, so my understanding is that they will not be official meetings with civil servants present.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, in 2013 the now noble Lord, Lord Lansley, introduced the lobbying Bill in the other place. It does not extend to activities such as those that the Minister just mentioned. Is that a satisfactory state of affairs? Should we not amend the lobbying Act to cover more of the activities now being revealed by the press?

Lord Young of Cookham: The Government are genuinely open to discussions about how we improve accountability and transparency in our political process. I am very happy to look at those proposals. In the past it has not been possible to achieve the sort of consensus one would like on these sensitive matters of political issue.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, does my noble friend not think that where money is obtained by political parties from proven criminal sources perhaps the funds should be returned, as in the case of the very substantial donations made by Mr Michael Brown to the Liberal party, which held on to the money?

Lord Young of Cookham: My Lords, behind this, there is a serious issue. Democracy in this country depends on political parties. If there is to be a choice at a general election, we need a range of financially viable, credible political parties which train and nurture  the people who lead this country and which provide an opportunity for engagement and debate at a national and local level. Given the limited taxpayer appetite to fund those activities and that political parties need to be resourced, we should be cautious about denigrating those who support political parties. We should encourage more people to join and financially support the political party that most closely reflects their values.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, is there not a fantastic opportunity here for a cross-party competition with listed politicians, to see who would pay most money not to have a meal with those politicians?

Lord Young of Cookham: In the past, when I put up as a prize a meal with myself, my wife made absolutely certain that she bought it.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, can I change the subject a bit? If the Prime Minister or any Cabinet Minister has the occasion to meet Mr Alex Salmond, will they express concern that he continues to front a programme on Putin’s propaganda channel?

Lord Young of Cookham: Again, I am more than happy to answer questions on behalf of the Government or, if pressed, on behalf of my political party. It is not for me to answers questions on behalf of Alex Salmond or members of other political parties.

National Debt
 - Question

Lord Bird: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what investments they will make in order to reduce the national debt.

Lord Bilimoria: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Bird, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.

Lord Bates: My Lords, the Government’s fiscal policy takes a balanced approach, getting debt as a share of GDP falling but also investing in key public services and in areas that are critical for productivity and growth. The latest forecast for public finances shows that we are on target to start reducing debt as a share of GDP next year.

Lord Bilimoria: I thank the Minister for his response. I am sure your Lordships will wish my noble friend Lord Bird a speedy recovery. As we all know, he is famous for launching the Big Issue and looking at matters through the prism of poverty. The Chancellor has said the age of austerity is all but over. Given that the day-to-day deficit has now been eliminated, will the Minister outline which new long-term and preventive investments Her Majesty’s Government will now make? Further debt reduction should not merely be the extension  of the age of austerity. Will the Minister agree that, as we have learned from today’s Equality and Human Rights Commission report entitled The Cumulative Impact of Tax and Welfare Reforms, austerity has hit the poorest and most vulnerable the hardest, with those with disabilities, certain ethnic groups, women and lone parents all bearing the brunt? Is there light at the end of the tunnel?

Lord Bates: I believe there is. First, I join the noble Lord in wishing a speedy recovery to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, who has done so much for alleviating poverty and giving people hope, a chance and a future in this country. Of course it is welcome that the OBR forecasts are now showing that debt will begin to fall from next year as a percentage of GDP, but it is still at the very high level of 85%. The interest we have to spend on that debt represents the combined amount combined on police and defence services. It is critical that we improve our productivity, which is why we have the £31 billion National Productivity Investment Fund, which is designed to do that by investing in R&D, housing and technology. But perhaps the best thing we can do for the poorest in our country is what we have been doing. We have seen an increase in employment to near-record levels, with 3 million new jobs, and the pay of the lowest paid has been driven up so that they are now experiencing, as a result of the national living wage, the fastest growth in real income that they have had for 20 years.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, can my noble friend explain why the Government insist on making the national debt appear even bigger than it in fact is? Is he not aware that as a result of quantitative easing—QE—a good quarter of the outstanding national debt is in fact owned by the Bank of England. In other words, it has been bought back. In the private sector, if a company buys back any of its debt, it is written off. Why do the Government not do the same?

Lord Bates: My noble friend, who comes to this with immense experience, makes an interesting point. Even if the element of total debt covered by the quantitative easing programme initiated by the Bank of England—about £120 billion—is taken out, the debt figure is still continuing to fall. That is the point we are trying to emphasise: debt is beginning to fall and we are beginning to live within our means, which is the right thing to do.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the greatest asset which any country has is the capacity and willingness of the people to work. Construction workers have been waiting for this Government to recognise and act on the housing crisis for several years. Does the Minister agree?

Lord Bates: I wonder whether the noble Lord heard last week when we discussed the national infrastructure plan and announced the initiatives that we were taking to boost the housing market—some £43 billion over the spending period. We recognise that housing is a huge issue, not only of intergenerational fairness but  also in terms of driving forward the economy. That is why we have announced the very substantial initiatives that we have to get that sector moving, including from the National Productivity Investment Fund, a large chunk of which is dedicated to housing.

Baroness Kramer: My Lords, do the Government recognise that borrowing that arises from excess day-to-day spending and borrowing that arises for investment in infrastructure and other capital projects are two entirely different issues? Any corporation treats them that way and this Government surely should. Would that not allow them to take the borrowing cap off local authorities, which could then invest in the social and affordable housing that no other programme is currently delivering and which would underpin economic growth in future?

Lord Bates: I again refer to the Statement, in which the Chancellor announced that in areas of high demand and low affordability local authorities would be given that additional flexibility, which is welcome.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, while we welcome the reductions in national debt, will the Minister confirm that household debt has been going in the opposite direction and that over the last five years there has been a 7% increase in personal debt to a staggering £1.6 trillion? Given that this is quite an albatross around the necks of many of the poorer families to which the Minister has referred, what are the Government doing to try to reduce the levels of personal debt?

Lord Bates: There are two things that we can do. One we have done already: the action that we took on payday loans, placing a cap on the appalling rates of interest that were being charged, was the right thing to do. Extending that to other areas of financial services is also right. But ultimately, the best thing that we can do for people who are struggling with debt is to provide work and opportunities so that they can repay that debt and provide a living and a hope for the future of their families.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, is the Minister aware—

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: This side, my Lords. I ask my noble friend resist the siren call from the Liberal Democrat Benches—

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: My Lords, time is up.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
 - Committee (7th Day) (Continued)

Clause 9: Implementing the withdrawal agreement
  

Debate on Amendment 150 resumed.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I support Amendment 150, which, in the somewhat bizarre language that we tend to use when dealing with crucial issues, has come to be known as the “meaningful process amendment”. As we know, this reasonably recent addition to our parliamentary lexicon really means the process by which Parliament deals with the outcome of the Brexit negotiations, an issue that already has quite a long history. Let us start with Article 50. It provides for any deal to be submitted for decision to the European Parliament before it can be finally and formally concluded, so the European Parliament can approve or reject any deal that has been negotiated. It is surely therefore inconceivable that this Parliament should not have the same right, all the more so since the cause in which those who campaigned to leave the EU were speaking was to restore sovereignty and take back control to our own Parliament. The June 2016 referendum has no binding effect and therefore needs to be approved, or not, by Parliament.
Fast-forward, then, to Lancaster House in January 2017, when the Prime Minister committed herself to the fact that any deal would be submitted to both Houses for their decisions—rather oddly, in my view, saying nothing at that stage about the primacy of the House of Commons. So far, so good. Ever since that day at Lancaster House when the Prime Minister gave that commitment, the Government have been taking a series of steps backwards from that step forward, which casts doubt on just how meaningful they intend the process to be. Twice they have attempted to prevent the process being put into statute. On the first occasion, in the context of the Bill triggering Article 50, when this House by a large majority voted to set such a provision in statute, they succeeded. At the time, the Government, it has to be admitted, had a majority in the Commons and therefore this House did not insist. On the second occasion, in the context of the EU (Withdrawal) Bill we are debating today, they were equally determined, but they were defeated, thanks to a cross-party alliance which has provided that statutory provision for a meaningful vote is now not only desirable but necessary. So, the Bill before us provides for that statutory process. The amendment to which I am now speaking is designed not to replace that but to clarify and spell it out, and to say how best the provisions should be applied to give Parliament a genuine and timely say in the matter.
What possible respectable reasons can there be for resisting this provision, this amendment and the clarification being proposed to your Lordships? It is hard, I would suggest, to think of one, although I suspect that the Minister will manage to do his best at the end of this debate. Could it be that the Government’s objective is to ensure that the votes in both Houses to which they are committed will take place only at a moment when it is too late to do very much about things and when the sands of Article 50 are running out? That would be to deprive the whole process of its meaning.

Lord Spicer: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, for whom I have long respect. Is he not proposing a bee sting, in effect—Parliament stings and then dies? The point of the Bill is to give powers to Parliament, which he would take away from Parliament’s control.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: I am sorry but I think the noble Lord has slightly misunderstood the amendment. It is Amendment 150, and if he looks at it, he will see that it gives Parliament more powers than it currently has, or was envisaged. A further look will show that it is not taking anything away from Parliament. It is ensuring that Parliament gets the powers in not only a formal but a meaningful sense, such that it can make use of those powers to direct the outcome.
This is, after all, the most significant decision that Parliament will take in this period—nobody, I should imagine, could dispute that—and it is the need to do so that makes the case for the amendment. No doubt the Minister will conclude his remarks, as he habitually does—I do not criticise him for it—by asking for the amendment to be withdrawn. Might he not consider, as others have suggested, that the best thing to happen now would be for the Government to accept it?

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: The noble Lord said that the referendum was not binding on Parliament. Can he deal with the point that the then Government spent almost £10 million of taxpayers’ money putting leaflets through every letterbox in the country that said, “Whatever you decide, the Government will implement”?

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: I will do my best. I was not and am not a supporter of any Government—I am a Cross-Bencher—but the Government the noble Lord is talking about had a majority in the House of Commons at the time; the Government who are negotiating our withdrawal from the European Union do not have a majority of their own in the House of Commons.

Baroness Altmann: May I point out to my noble friend that we are implementing the will of the British people as expressed in the referendum? That is what we have been debating all these many hours and days. The British people voted for us to negotiate a withdrawal from the EU and that is what this Bill is about. It is not about not respecting that, or indeed honouring the promise that was given to the British people.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: Yes, that is exactly my opinion, too.

Lord Cormack: I am grateful to the noble Lord. My only point is that no Government can at any time bind a future Parliament.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, a final answer to the question by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, would be that we do not just leave automatically. There is a whole range of choices that have to be made and those choices involve the Government negotiating an agreement and then, I would respectfully submit, Parliament deciding whether it approves of the deal that has been done. As the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, rightly said, this is not about trying to frustrate the outcome of the referendum, but trying to get to a sensible answer, which Parliament takes responsibility for.
We had a fantastic debate this morning and I invidiously single out the four speeches by my noble friends Lady Hayter and Lord Reid of Cardowan, the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. They were absolutely terrific in terms of establishing—and re-establishing—the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. I recommend my noble friend Lord Reid’s speech; this is not some abstract principle—it is about Parliament performing its rule and its role in order that there is better governance of our country. There are three particular effects in this respect.
First—and I can say this, having been in government—there is nothing that makes government decisions better than the fact that you will be grilled by Parliament on those decisions; it makes you think them through much more. The more this Government think that they can do Brexit without being grilled by Parliament, the worse the decisions will be.
Secondly, every time I speak to people in the European Union, they ask whether this Government have the authority to do any deal, because of their precarious political position. The more that the people with whom we are negotiating think the Government will have the authority of Parliament, the more they will pay attention to what the Government are doing.
Thirdly, we want a deal that the country has confidence in. People are much more likely to have confidence in a deal that does not appear to be the product of a negotiation between the Prime Minister and Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg but which appears to be something that Parliament as a whole is willing to approve.
For those three reasons, all of which are practical, I think it is really important that Parliament has a meaningful vote. The debate this morning indicated that there was broad consensus around this House that Parliament should have a meaningful vote. I will just draw out three aspects of that meaningful vote—does the Minister agree that these aspects will be covered?
First, the meaningful vote must be in respect of the withdrawal agreement, the transition agreement and the political declaration that it is envisaged will be agreed between the European Union and the United Kingdom on the future trading relationship between the two. I include that because, as the Minister knows, Article 50 says that the withdrawal agreement must have regard to the future relationship.
Secondly, the meaningful vote—in order to be meaningful—must take place at such a time as it can affect the result. That means before the European Parliament has voted, and while there is still time for Her Majesty’s Government to go back and negotiate further, if that be the wish of Parliament, in accordance with any one of the three agreements or political declarations I have identified.
Thirdly, in order to be meaningful, this statute must make provision for Parliament—in practice that means the Commons—to be able to say to the Government what it should do next. To take an extreme example, if the Government came back and said, “We want there to be no deal except a really exiguous deal,” it would be open to Parliament to say, “No, go back and get a  free trade agreement with the following indicia in it”. Or, if the Government came back with a free trade agreement only, and no customs arrangement of any sort, it would be open to Parliament—that is, the Commons—to say, “No, seek to negotiate a customs union on the following basis”.
Without those three elements covering the three items—it being the right time, and Parliament being able to say to the Government, “Go back and negotiate along these lines”, the provision would not, in my respectful submission, be meaningful. It is plain, because the Commons passed the amendment to the current Clause 9, that they wanted a meaningful vote. I am sure that all the amendments will come back in a form that has broad agreement throughout the House, and that they will propose to spell out what the Commons can do. I very much hope that in his response to this amendment, the Minister will take more seriously the questions he has been asked—and those that he was asked on the previous group of amendments.

Lord Lisvane: My Lords, together with my noble and learned friend Lord Judge, and the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Adonis, I tabled notice of intention to oppose Clause 9 standing part of the Bill, in order to ensure a debate on the purport of the clause, not least on the generality of it—and not least because of the extended delegated powers that it contains. It has been a delight that that notion has been part of a debate with such outstanding speeches, including those of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Reid, and pre-eminently that of the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes. I suggest that his speech should be written in letters of gold and set as a compulsory constitutional text—and after his speech a few moments ago, I would add the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, to that roll of honour.
I was also musing on the effect of the words helpfully inserted in Clause 9(1) by Mr Dominic Grieve’s Amendment 7 in the Commons. If there were no deal, I wondered, would the requirement that the final terms of withdrawal should be approved by statute actually bite? But on reflection, I concluded that even if, at the end of the negotiation, there were nothing but scorched earth, there would have to be some sort of withdrawal agreement, and that in turn would make the proviso effective. In political terms it might, of course, be even more effective if no deal at all cast a different light on the fundamental question of withdrawal.
The area of great concern in Clause 9 is, of course, the powers proposed to be conferred by subsection (2). As I have Amendment 154 to that subsection, and as my noble and learned friend Lord Judge has asked me to move Amendment 153 in his unavoidable absence, I shall reserve any further remarks until we reach that group.

Baroness McDonagh: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Kingsmill and I have been trying to get in on this group of amendments since the beginning of the debate. Unfortunately, the noble Baroness had a meeting with the Bank of England at 4 o’clock, and as the chair of a bank, she could not fail to go to it. I  sought advice from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and she suggested that I should read the noble Baroness’s words into the record. I shall then make my own comments on Amendments 155 and 191.
On behalf of my noble friend Lady Kingsmill, I support Amendment 199. Many noble Lords have spoken eloquently about this amendment, which seeks to preserve our current relationship with the EU should Parliament decide not to approve the withdrawal agreement and ask the Government to go back to the negotiating table. The Brexit process has been characterised by uncertainty. We simply do not know what the final deal will look like, under what circumstances we will do business, be consumers, travel and work. We do not know what our future relationship with Europe will be, and Article 50 sets the clock ticking for when we would need answers to those questions.
This amendment seeks to ensure that the withdrawal deal put to Parliament is not a choice between a poor deal or no deal, whereby the UK would crash out of the EU and revert to WTO terms. Noble Lords have spoken about how that would be hard for our economy and for trade and services. It would, and it would also be hard for people. It is this last point, the rights of EU citizens, which I would like to touch on today. Negotiations are about the balance between what is gained and what is lost. Some of that will be quantifiable in financial terms but it will also be about culture, opportunity and identity.
My children have grown up as proud citizens of the UK and Europe. They do not question that you can be both, or that being one means diminishing the other. They have never had to question that they can travel, study, work and live across borders, and that their qualifications and skills are recognised. For them, Europe is a place of opportunities, not obstacles. When the UK leaves the EU, it is not just that generation which will lose a part of their identity and a sense of belonging, it is the UK as a whole.
I am an immigrant, brought to this country as a child from New Zealand. When I was 18 and a new undergraduate at Cambridge, I applied for a British passport to travel to Switzerland for a walking holiday with friends. I was refused on the grounds that I was not British because neither my father nor my grandfather was born in the UK. I was shocked and felt very insecure. Eventually, I obtained a New Zealand passport. On my return to the UK after my holiday, I was required to go to the purser’s office on the ferry and was questioned about my commitment to the UK by a police officer not much older than myself. I eventually received the stamp in my passport giving me indefinite right to stay. I think I have done pretty well since then.
A week ago, the House heard informed debate on amendments that sought to put the rights of EU citizens into the Bill. I welcome the fact that an agreement was reached in principle in December on EU citizens’ rights as part of the phase 1 agreement. However, as noble Lords raised last week, there remains uncertainty and anxiety for EU citizens about their position, in particular in the event of a failure to reach a withdrawal deal. Even if EU citizens’ rights are clarified in the withdrawal agreement, what if the rest  of the withdrawal agreement is not a good deal for the UK and Parliament votes against it? What happens then? In those circumstances, until we are certain and ready and prepared for a successful positive future relationship with the EU, surely we should retain the status quo and relationship we have. Surely, we owe it to the EU citizens here and the generation who will have their British-European identity severed to extend Article 50 until the best deal can be reached. That is what this amendment seeks to ensure.
Speaking for myself, I support Amendments 151 and 199. I find myself in the very unusual and discombobulating circumstances of agreeing with most noble Lords on the other side of the Chamber. If noble Lords were present at this morning’s debate, they would appreciate that we are in danger of breaking out into unity across Benches and parties.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I suggest to the noble Baroness that it would save us all a great deal of time and effort in coming here if she simply read out all our speeches on our behalf, using this rather extraordinary procedure that she has embarked upon.

Baroness Goldie: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Kingsmill, wanted to participate earlier but had an inescapable engagement. She and her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, spoke to me. I felt that, in all the circumstances, it would be in our interests because, as far as I am aware, we have not had a female contribution to this debate. It is appropriate that the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, be given the opportunity to express her views and, in these exceptional circumstances, to convey the views of her noble friend Lady Kingsmill.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: Far be it for me to argue with my noble friend, but this is not a matter of gender, it is a matter of procedure of the House. If one is able to read out other people’s speeches without limit, it creates a most extraordinary precedent. I hope those in charge of our procedures will consider whether it is something that should be repeated.

Lord Adonis: There is no danger that anyone would want to read the noble Lord’s speeches on his behalf, so he need not worry and we can hear more from my noble friend.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I am making a perfectly serious point, and I do not think anybody has appointed the noble Lord to decide on the procedures of this House.

Lord Reid of Cardowan: We all often enjoy the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. It is not a precedent; it is a convention of this House that if someone unavoidably cannot attend, they may ask someone else to deliver their speech. That was explained at the beginning of my noble friend’s speech, which the noble Lord would have heard had he been listening. It was an unusual discourtesy for the noble Lord to intervene in the way that he has done.

Baroness McDonagh: I thank the Minister and say to the whole Committee that I am willing to read out anyone’s speech should they come and ask me to do so. I say to the Minister that the problem is that I would answer the questions that Ministers put before me.
This morning, my noble friend Lord Reid of Cardowan used the word “preposterous”. That is the position we are now getting ourselves into. On one level, it really worries me that Amendments 151 and 199 needed to be tabled. It seemed completely preposterous that Parliament and the Government could get themselves into a position whereby the Government negotiate a deal, take it to the European Parliament, leave the EU and then bring the deal back to Parliament. That seems to involve all the conditions of creating a constitutional crisis. By tabling this range of amendments—specifically Amendments 151 and 199—this House is properly conducting its business of scrutinising the legislation and ensuring that it makes sense.
I do not want to repeat this morning’s speeches by the noble Lords, Lord Cormack, Lord Balfe and Lord Patten, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and my noble friends Lord Reid and Lord Liddle. Instead, I have a question for the Minister and I still hope he will be able to rise to his feet and say that the Government accept Amendments 151 and 199, but if he is unable to do so, could he please explain how Amendment 7, passed in the other place, can be implemented in a meaningful way?

Lord Dykes: My Lords, I will speak briefly mainly to Amendment 216, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, which I also signed, but I will also refer briefly to Clause 9 and its generality.
On the recent exchanges, I may be incorrect, but speaking from a shaky procedural memory, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was probably correct in what he said: the procedure that the noble Baroness opposite engaged in is unusual, although I understand that she had the permission of the House to do so. It was perhaps an exceptional moment, and noble Lords may agree, particularly in Committee rather than the whole House, that it is not necessarily a transgression. However, I think a law somewhere in the procedure book says that what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, asserted is correct. Be that as it may, I pass on to the important matters of Clause 9 and Amendment 216.
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, very much for his splendid delivery of the arguments this morning. The amendment is considerably detailed, going into its subject with great care, and it calls on the Government to study it with great care. I hope that the Government will therefore do that justice, because it is necessary. We heard other good speeches this morning—the noble Lord, Lord Patten, has been mentioned several times; I thank him again for what he said, because he said it with great humour. At long last, what I call the “Ian McEwan phenomenon”—total outrage and depression at the nightmare of Brexit—can be replaced with feeling a bit more cheerful about things as events develop. That is now affecting me as well, and I thank the other speakers for what they said.
When we began Committee of this tedious but necessary technical Bill—as I think we described it in the early stages—following the unleashing of Article 50, we anti-Brexiteers felt that we just had to get through it, however miserable we might feel, but that has not happened. The substance is now there, and it has increased much more in material terms. Now, at long last, in Clause 9—which is disturbing in the way it has been drafted by the Government—we come to a serious examination and careful consideration of the deep implications of the abuse of parliamentary freedom and sovereignty which would be engaged if the text remained unchanged. That is therefore much more than just a technical matter; it is a matter of the true sovereignty of Parliament. That is mainly, of course, the House of Commons and the parliamentary decision it will make about approving or not the final outcome of these negotiations—although I use that word in the widest sense, because they are not proper negotiations at all. The Government have been inept, clumsy and maladroit, under an increasingly unpopular Prime Minister, who has no authority after the 8 June election to pursue this course anyway, a dodgy alliance with a dubious political entity in Northern Ireland called the DUP, and a questionable First Minister to add to the gloomy picture. As we go on, we will see the effects of this dubious Bill unless it is resisted. I therefore agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, in his assertion that we should resist Clause 9 in its entirety and ask the Government to think again.
I also commend very much the speech on Amendment 190 from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, because it was the one that most clearly mentioned the magic phrase “or stay in the European Union anyway”, or however it is put. That needs to be said more and more as public opinion changes. I do not wish to deprive the public of the will of that referendum decision in any way; none the less I see the change of feeling that is now occurring in this country, with the beginnings of a clear net majority of the population—including the new, young voters who will come in next time—against the idea of leaving the European Union. That also has to be taken into account by the Government. Whatever the final text of the Bill, that must be acknowledged, and the Government might as well start saying things along those lines to get the public ready for transmission of the Bill back to the Commons and its ultimate verdict on this, the worst incident in post-war politics in Britain. I think someone said it was one of the worst decisions since the refusal to keep to the agreement on home rule for the whole of the Irish territory in the previous century. The British Government went back on that with all the trouble that ensued. This is now the worst decision we have seen, with the Government pursuing very dodgy talks and dubious negations on an increasingly weak basis. It is time for greater reality to set in when the Bill goes back to the Commons.

Lord Adonis: May I take up the very generous offer of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that someone else read his speech? I am very keen to get hold of it, and I will make suitable amendments, including accepting the amendments moved this afternoon, which are excellent. I am also keen to get hold of the future speeches of my noble friend on the Front Bench. If we  have a meeting minds on what I think will be the increasingly important issue facing the House—that of how the meaningful vote is conducted and whether there should be a vote of the people on the withdrawal treaty—and get to the right place on that, I hope we can live up to the injunction of the noble Lord, Lord Patten, that we uphold our democratic traditions. We clearly need to, given the gravity of the issues we face.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said he thought that leaving the European Union was the worst decision taken by Parliament since the rejection of the Irish home rule Bills in the 1880s and 1890s. We all have our lists of the worst decisions taken by Parliament, but on Irish home rule I would note that the first home rule Bill was defeated by the House of Commons and the second by the House of Lords. We have not played an honourable part at all in the conduct of Irish affairs over the last 150 years. The second home rule Bill was possibly the last best chance of devolution to the island of Ireland as a whole, on an agreed basis, and was promoted by arguably the best Prime Minister —Churchill aside—this country has had in the last 150 years: Gladstone. That Bill was rejected in this House by 419 to 41 votes—nearly unanimously—on the recommendation of the then leader of the Conservative Party, Lord Salisbury, who said that the Irish were no more fitted to self-government than Hottentots and uncivilised tribes in Africa. We do not always get these decisions right as a Parliament and we need to pay very careful attention—as we seek to do now—to the frame in which we take these momentous decisions at the end of the year.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: Does the noble Lord not appreciate the irony of choosing the home rule Bill as an example? This Bill is about restoring home rule to Britain from Europe.

Lord Adonis: What Gladstone showed so brilliantly is that it is possible to share sovereignty both within your nation and between nations. Gladstone was a great champion of the concept of Europe and, indeed, of international arbitration, which he pioneered to a significant extent.

Baroness McDonagh: Does the noble Lord agree that this is the point we are making? The Bill allows the European Parliament to vote on the withdrawal agreement without a meaningful vote necessarily taking place in the UK Parliament—unless there is agreement about the way that will be taken, the timing and the procedure for it. Is that not the case?

Lord Adonis: I entirely agree with my noble friend.

Lord Dykes: I have just a brief point on the previous remark of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. Does he not agree that the great essence of membership of the European Union is that it is a club of equal sovereign members? Can he briefly explain why he thinks the United Kingdom is the only member that has lost the self-confidence and maturity to deem itself an equal sovereign member, like all of the others?

Lord Adonis: That is a hypothetical question because I still do not take it as a foregone conclusion that the United Kingdom will leave the European Union. We are engaging in a protracted democratic debate in the country. It is a debate centred on Parliament and which engages the people, and it still has at least a year to go. I think it may end up taking longer than that. I am a profound believer in the wisdom of our democracy if given the time for a proper and full debate, and, as is our duty, we are seeking to ensure that the nation has that full opportunity.
Coming back to the earlier brilliant speeches that we heard from my noble friend Lord Reid, the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Patten, the reason we need to pay such attention to these issues is that Parliament has so far not covered itself in glory. The decision to have a parliamentary process for the invoking of Article 50 had to be dragged out of the Government by the Supreme Court, with Parliament not exerting itself until the Supreme Court had opined. The debates on the Bill in the other House were grossly inadequate. This is the most important Bill that Parliament will discuss until the withdrawal treaty but large chunks of it were entirely undebated in the House of Commons.
The noble Viscount’s father talked very powerfully and movingly about the elective dictatorship. We have seen the elective dictatorship in full operation in the conduct of the negotiations and the procedures over leaving the European Union. I do not think that this House has covered itself in glory so far either. Speeches on the most important issue facing this country in a generation were guillotined at six or seven minutes at Second Reading, and the Government have had to have additional time dragged out of them day by day for the consideration of the Bill in Committee.
We sat until 2.37 am on Monday because the Government would not provide an additional day. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said that I was not here. He is correct. The reason I was not here was that, after eight continuous hours of debate, to be frank, I did not think I should be an agent to prolonging the debate, which I tend to do when I am present, from 2.37 am to what might well have been well after three o’clock in the morning. We were debating the whole of the future of the financial services industry of this country, air traffic control and aviation, and the European Chemicals Agency at 1 am on Monday. That is no way for this House to conduct the business of the nation.

Hear, hear!

Lord Adonis: We need these amendments because we simply do not trust the Government to have an adequate parliamentary procedure in place unless Parliament exerts itself in advance. That is why the amendments of the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, which discuss time, are so important.
I want to highlight two issues in respect of the procedure that we need to follow when the Prime Minister submits the withdrawal treaty to Parliament. First, there must be adequate time for Parliament to debate it, because there can be no democracy unless there is time to discuss it. We should remember that Clement Attlee famously said that democracy is  government by discussion, but this Government are very keen on closing down discussion. Your Lordships and the other place need to put in place arrangements to ensure that there will be adequate time. To my mind, those arrangements are crucial. At the moment in the existing Clause 9, even as amended by Dominic Grieve’s amendment in the House of Commons, there is no requirement in respect of the time that must be given to Parliament to reach these momentously important decisions. That needs to be put right.

Viscount Waverley: When the noble Lord talks about timing and Parliament, is he also anticipating that Select Committees will be given time to consider their issues and report back to the House so that Parliament can consider the appropriate course?

Lord Adonis: The noble Viscount raises a very important issue which has not been debated in either House of Parliament at all so far—whether there should be a Select Committee procedure when the withdrawal treaty is presented. That is exactly the kind of issue we should be discussing, and not at one o’clock in the morning.
The second issue, which goes to the heart of the bona fides of the Government, is the options that Parliament will debate and reach decisions on when the withdrawal treaty is presented. The Prime Minister has said repeatedly—indeed, the Minister has repeated it—that the only option that Parliament will be given when the treaty is presented is between accepting the treaty or rejecting it and leaving without a treaty on World Trade Organization terms. That is a completely false, misleading and unacceptable statement of what the options facing Parliament should be. Parliament, which is sovereign, can and should itself decide what options will be available to it. An absolutely credible option—indeed, in my view it is the most credible option facing the country—is that we simply stay in the European Union. The idea that this sovereign Parliament will not be allowed to consider that as an option is totally unacceptable. There obviously should be an option. The reason why we need to enshrine that as an option, as other noble Lords have said, is precisely that the Government, by executive fiat, are seeking to rule it out. That is unacceptable.
These amendments are vital. They go to the heart of the role of Parliament in our nation’s affairs. As the noble Lord, Lord Patten, said—I entirely agree with him—the ultimate test of Parliament is how it conducts itself on the biggest issues facing the nation at any given time. We may do brilliant work revising legislation—hopefully at more civilised hours, which is of secondary importance—but the thing that everyone in this country will remember about Parliament in our generation is how we conducted ourselves on this big issue of whether we stay in the European Union or leave it.
Noble Lords take inspiration from many great historical figures but I have always taken it on these matters from Churchill. One of his greatest speeches during the war—ironically, made in this Chamber after the House of Commons was bombed and it moved in   here—was in October 1943 on a Motion to rebuild the House of Commons on precisely the model that Hitler had destroyed and not to a more modern design. He said:
“We attach immense importance to the survival of Parliamentary democracy. In this country this is one of our war aims … the House of Commons … has earned and captured and held through long generations the imagination and respect of the British nation. It is not free from shortcomings; they mark all human institutions. Nevertheless, I submit … that our House has proved itself capable of adapting itself to every change which the swift pace of modern life has brought upon us”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/10/1943; cols 404-405.]
If Churchill could say that about the House of Commons in 1943, we are certainly capable of having adequate procedures in place to debate the Prime Minister’s withdrawal treaty at the end of the year.

Lord Spicer: I am not quite sure what credence the noble Lord gives to the referendum. He did not mention it in his speech.

Lord Adonis: We are debating these issues precisely because of the referendum. However, the referendum is not the last word on parliamentary democracy; nor is it the last word, crucially, on a treaty which the people did not even see two years ago when they voted. They could not see it because it had not been negotiated.

Viscount Waverley: Would the noble Lord wish to encourage the Minister to comment on the effect on timing if the ECJ makes a ruling in relation to the rights of UK citizens, inasmuch as we will still be citizens of the European Union and that ruling may come during the transition period or the implementation period that will be announced after the agreement has been agreed to?

Lord Adonis: Perhaps the Minister may say more about this when he replies. Given the complexity and difficulty of these negotiations, it is perfectly possible that the withdrawal treaty will not be submitted until quite late. I would not be surprised if we do not see the withdrawal treaty this side of Christmas, so it will not be a long period. If the withdrawal treaty is presented late, the Government should seek an extension of the Article 50 period so that there is adequate parliamentary scrutiny, debate and opportunity for decision on that treaty. If the Government were serious about respecting the sovereignty of Parliament, the Minister would announce that there will be at least a three-month period between the submission of the withdrawal treaty and the expiration of the date on which we leave the European Union.
I know he will not give that statement because we all know what he seeks to do. He is an ardent Brexiteer and he simply wants us out, come what may, on 29 March next year. He is not worried about parliamentary processes or democracy; he is one of that group of far-right nationalists who simply want us out. Our job is to see that Parliament is respected and that it is the British people and their parliamentary representatives who take this decision, but they cannot do that if they do not have adequate time to debate it.

Lord Bilimoria: One point that the noble Lord has made which I do not think has been emphasised enough is that the public are under the impression that Brexit is a done deal and there is no alternative. They do not realise that there is an option to remain, and it is Parliament’s job to put the message out because the Government are brainwashing people the other way.

Lord Bowness: My Lords, I support Amendment 150 and I have nothing to add to the memorable speeches that were made this morning, save to say to my noble friends on the Front Bench that if an amendment in similar form comes before your Lordships’ House on Report, I will, notwithstanding, vote for it.
I also ask the Minister to address the circumstances set out in Amendment 199, proposed by my noble friend Lord Cormack. Will the Minister tell us how the Government would react to the circumstances set out in that amendment? In particular, can he confirm positively that in those circumstances, the Government will give active consideration to requesting an extension of the period under Article 50? Indeed, I would submit that, given the difficulties which are becoming more apparent every single day, perhaps it would be wise to ask for that extension now and be honest with people by making it clear to them why we are asking for it. We could then reflect upon the wisdom of seeking to maintain the red lines with which we have managed to bind ourselves into an impossible straitjacket.

Baroness Altmann: My Lords, I rise to support this group of amendments and I commend all those noble Lords who have tabled and spoken so eloquently to them. I too deeply regret that they are even necessary. It is hard to believe that in purporting to respect the referendum result, which the Government have portrayed as wanting to take back control, this legislation does not ensure that it is our Parliament rather than one group of Ministers that will have proper control over the future EU relationship. There must be a meaningful vote for Parliament.
We cannot accept a Bill which fails to respect the sovereignty of Parliament on an issue of such magnitude. That is how our democracy works. I support in particular Amendments 199, 216 and 217, tabled in the names of several of my noble friends, which relate to the no deal position. We are trying to deliver what the British people voted for and they trust us to do that well. Surely, we know that the will of the people is not a no deal outcome. Indeed, we were given in detail in the debate this morning on the first amendments a snapshot of the many disasters that could befall our country and its citizens if we lose all the benefits of the EU safeguards, protections and agencies on which their daily lives depend, as well as our industrial success.
These amendments are about parliamentary control and guarding against a no deal outcome—just in case that is the outcome which is envisaged. Enough of the bluster and bravado; enough of those who are still saying that no deal is okay; and enough of seeming to rely on the EU to rescue us from the cliff edge before we jump because they assume that Europe does not want the damage that the no deal outcome would do. I say this to my noble friend the Minister: please accept these amendments or bring forward an appropriate  government version on Report which puts our Parliament properly at the centre and in control of protecting our national interest in this Bill.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, it may have changed since I was in the House of Commons, but can my noble friend explain to me why she thinks it necessary for this House to amend the Bill in order for the House of Commons to have a vote on anything it chooses?

Baroness Altmann: It is indeed our job to make recommendations to the other place if we believe that there are issues in this Bill which go to the heart of some of the constitutional matters relating to it.

Lord Cormack: Will my noble friend remind my other noble friend that the Bill has gone through all its stages in another place? It is now before us. We have to amend it as and when we think, and the other place has to pronounce on our amendments. It is our duty to say to it, “Please think again”, if we feel that is necessary. At the end of the day, the other place will have the final word.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, a point was made by several noble Lords as to a delay in the operation of Article 50. If I remember rightly, under Clause 2, there is a period of two years. Can that be invoked unilaterally or does it need the consent of all 27 other members? I would be most grateful if the Minister could reply. If not, I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, will correct us.

Lord Spicer: My Lords, I was not intending to speak until the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, spoke. As I understand it, the position of the anti-Brexiteers until recently has been that they accept the verdict of the referendum—we should come out—but that the referendum did not pose the difficult question of how to do so and the whole debate was to make sure that the electorate understood how we will do this very complex thing. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, put the proposition that the referendum was of no account at all and we had to go back to the question as to whether we stayed in the European Union. I have not heard him say that before, I must say.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I did not say that the referendum was of no account at all.

Lord Spicer: Giving an option to stay in is saying that we will go over the whole question again.

Lord Patten of Barnes: I invite the Minister to explain to my noble friend—who I have known for years and like very much—the difference between parliamentary sovereignty and plebiscitary democracy. It is quite a fundamental difference in our constitution.

Lord Callanan: If my noble friend will forgive me, I will concentrate on the amendments before us and leave this existential debate for my two noble friends on the Back Benches to conduct among themselves.
The approval of the UK’s final deal with the EU has already been the focus of a great deal of sustained debate during the passage of both the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act and this Bill. The Government have committed to hold a vote on the final deal in Parliament as soon as possible after the negotiations have concluded. Let me say, in direct response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, that this vote will take the form of a resolution in both Houses of Parliament and will cover both the withdrawal agreement and the terms of our future relationship. The Government will not implement any parts of the withdrawal agreement until after this vote has taken place.
As we have repeatedly made clear, we fully expect, intend and will make every effort that this vote will take place before the European Parliament votes. However, I hope noble Lords will understand that we do not control the EU’s timeframe for approving the withdrawal agreement and therefore cannot make any statutory assurances where it is concerned. This would be the case with Amendment 150 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, Amendment 151 tabled by my noble friend Lord Cormack and Amendment 216 tabled by my noble friend Lord Hailsham.

Lord Reid of Cardowan: A much wiser and older head than me, Merlyn Rees, once told me that, when listening to a Minister’s replies, I should forget everything before the “but”; I include in that everything before the “however”. What follows the “however” gives the Government executive powers to take a course of action completely opposite to the amendments that say that a vote should be done before the European Parliament votes. Of course the Government do not control the timetable for the European Parliament, but they control the timetable for this Parliament. We are asking for the vote to be given substance and time—rather than being a theoretical meaningful vote—as well as an assurance that the decision will be taken by this Parliament before we have to sit and watch the European Parliament voting on the deal. Can the Minister address that issue and explain to us why it is impossible to do that simple thing?

Viscount Waverley: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he pass comment about not just the European Parliament but the EU national parliaments? Will they have a yes or no, or ask their Governments to go back to the Council to keep at it?

Lord Reid of Cardowan: Let us take it one step at a time.

Lord Callanan: In response to the noble Viscount’s final question, no, there will be no vote in national parliaments on this matter: it is a delegated function to the EU. Only a qualified majority vote in the European Council is required, and then a vote in the European Parliament. I can go no further in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Reid, than to repeat my statement that we expect and intend the vote to take place before the vote in the European Parliament.

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames: I am sorry to interrupt, but if the withdrawal agreement is a mixed agreement then there do have to be votes in national parliaments and, indeed, in regional parliaments. Is the Minister saying that I am wrong about that?

Lord Callanan: Yes, I fear the noble Lord is wrong about that. I think he is referring to the final trade agreement, which we hope will be a mixed agreement and will therefore need approval in national parliaments. The Article 50 process does not require approval in national parliaments.

Lord Cormack: I respectfully suggest that my noble friend is wrong in saying that it is impossible to guarantee a vote in our national Parliament before one in the European Parliament. If we are taking back control, surely in this of all Bills we can give that assurance.

Lord Callanan: I can give him the assurance that we intend, we expect, we hope and we want the vote in this Parliament to take place before the European Parliament votes, but we do not know at what stage the European Parliament will vote: it may be, to quote a hypothetical circumstance, that this Parliament will be in recess and that the European Parliament will have a vote immediately thereafter. However, I do not know; I am just saying when we want it to take place and we expect and intend it to do so.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, the Minister is making pretty heavy weather of this. Has he not noticed that Monsieur Barnier has said that he believes the negotiations need to be completed by October, so as to give the European Parliament time for its processes, which include committee processes and which will thus have six months to take place? Instead of beating about the bush, can he not just say that we are going to do it first?

Lord Callanan: I thank the noble Lord for telling me about the processes of the European Parliament, but I was a Member of it for 15 years and I am aware of the processes very well. We have, however, made clear that it is our objective to reach an agreement with the EU by October 2018. This objective is shared by the EU and is one which we consider we are on course to deliver. We expect, therefore, that the vote will take place substantially before exit day and ahead of the deadline in Amendment 196 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and Amendment 213 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. To insert statutory deadlines into this process, however, would serve no purpose except to weaken our negotiating position, because while an early deal is highly desirable we must balance that with a recognition of the need to achieve the best possible deal.
The decision to hold a referendum was put to the electorate at the 2015 general election—

Lord Adonis: My Lords, if the Minister is not prepared to give any ground on the timescale in terms of the amount of time we shall have to debate it, will he tell the Committee what he thinks is the latest possible date the Government could submit the treaty?

Lord Callanan: I do not want to get into precise timings like that: we have said that we hope to have an agreement concluded by October 2018, which accords with the position set out by Monsieur Barnier. That is the timetable that we are working to. If we achieve that timetable, there should be plenty of time for a vote in this House and in another place, followed by the vote in the European Parliament.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I am a little confused. Clause 9, as amended in the Commons, refers to Parliament approving the final terms of withdrawal. If I understand the noble Lord correctly, he has suggested that there will be an interim agreement by the end of this year, before we leave, but the final agreement, about our future relationship, et cetera, will come a good deal later. Will he explain why these two are compatible?

Lord Callanan: If the noble Lord will allow me to make some progress I will come on to the issues of Clause 9 later.
The decision to hold a referendum was endorsed by Parliament, which then consented to the Government acting on the outcome of that referendum through the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act. More than 80% of voters in the 2017 election supported manifestos committed to delivering on that referendum result.
I say this only to underline to noble Lords that amendments which could be perceived as a means to delay or disregard that result carry with them their own risks to people’s faith in their democracy and its institutions. Many noble Lords, including the most respected and convinced of erstwhile supporters of the UK remaining in the EU, said at Second Reading that the Bill is not the parliamentary vehicle to seek to provide for that. The Government have received a clear instruction from the British people. On a turnout higher than at any general election since 1992, 17.4 million people voted to leave the European Union—more than the 13.7 million who voted Conservative at the 2017 general election; more than the 11.3 million who voted Conservative in 2015; more even than the 13.5 million who voted Labour at the 1997 general election, which delivered the party opposite a significant majority in the other place, of which many noble Lords were distinguished members.

Lord Higgins: My noble friend speaks of a clear instruction from the British people in the referendum but the Bill which was introduced for a referendum, and then debated and voted on in this House, was very clearly for an advisory referendum. It was in no sense an instruction.

Lord Callanan: That point has been addressed in exchanges earlier. The then Government made a clear commitment, in a leaflet delivered to every household  in the country, that the result of the referendum would be respected. The people voted to leave the EU and the Government have committed to deliver on their instructions. Therefore, we will not seek to remain a member of the EU, as Amendment 190 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, seeks to achieve. I am sure he will not be surprised to hear me say this.

Lord Wigley: Before the Minister leaves that point, in the event of there being a no-deal Brexit, the Government would have to come back to Parliament to put it before MPs and this Chamber. In the event of MPs refusing to endorse that, will he confirm that the status quo ante will prevail and we would remain part of a united Europe?

Lord Callanan: No, I will not endorse that. I will come on to the circumstances in a minute.
Let me say directly to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that while there are many possible outcomes for our future relationship, remaining in the EU is clearly not one which can be reconciled with the decision taken in the referendum.

Lord Higgins: But there was no decision taken; it was an advisory referendum. My noble friend refers to a leaflet distributed in the course of the referendum. If so, it was totally incompatible with what this House agreed.

Lord Callanan: My noble friend and I will just have to disagree on this one.
We have also made our position clear that the notice given by the Prime Minister in accordance with Article 50, and which was approved by both Houses of Parliament, will not be revoked. It will not be extended as Amendment 199 tabled by my noble friend Lord Cormack and Amendment 216 tabled by my noble friend Lord Hailsham seek to do.

Lord Adonis: If the Minister will forgive me, he is not in any position to make that clear because that is a decision which the House of Commons will take. It is not for the Government to say that there will be no rescinding of the notice under Article 50. If the House of Commons votes to rescind the notice under Article 50, that notice will be revoked. We are a parliamentary democracy.

Lord Callanan: The Government’s position is clear that Article 50 will not be revoked. We will discuss the question—

Lord Cormack: My Lords, with everything he says my noble friend is repudiating the authority and position of Parliament, and asserting the supremacy of the Executive. That is inimical to parliamentary democracy.

Lord Callanan: I think I am asserting the supremacy of the people who voted in a referendum.

Oh!

Lord Callanan: My Lords, we will discuss the appropriateness of a second referendum later today—

Lord Reid of Cardowan: The Minister has just, perhaps inadvertently, said something of profound constitutional consequence. Is he asserting from that Dispatch Box that parliamentary representative democracy is no longer sovereign if there is a plebiscite? This is an extremely important constitutional issue and he has just made that assertion. Would he like to withdraw the assertion or to reassert that parliamentary democracy is no longer sovereign?

Lord Callanan: I am asserting that Parliament voted to hold a referendum. The referendum took place, and we all know the result. We believe that that referendum should be respected. I am sorry that noble Lords do not agree with me, but that is the Government’s position.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Am I not right in saying that the Government have taken power to extend the exit day beyond the date in the Article 50 notice? That is contained in Clause 14(4). Why did they take that power if they were determined, as the Minister is saying, never to change the date?

Lord Callanan: We are leaving the European Union on 29 March next year in accordance with the Article 50 notification and we have made it very clear countless times. The Prime Minister has made it clear that the Article 50 notification will not be revoked.

Lord Taverne: Is the Minister not contradicting the statement by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union that the essence of a democracy is that it can change its mind?

Lord Callanan: Of course Parliament is allowed to change its mind. It does so on many occasions and no doubt will do so in future on other issues.
It is our view that the question of whether to leave and the process of approving how we leave have been decided. Parliament approved the referendum and has signalled its approval to every step the Government have taken since July 2016. Furthermore the people authorised the Government’s negotiating position as a result of the election last year. Lastly, we have made a solemn promise to seek approval, which I am confident will be granted, from Parliament of the outcome of those negotiations.
I stress that I understand many noble Lords’ deeply and honestly held conviction that the UK should not leave the EU. That has become very clear to me throughout the progress of the Bill, but this is a Bill to provide maximum legal certainty upon exit. I do not think it would be in the interests of either the EU or the UK to open the door to an ever-continuing negotiation process with no certainty that the UK will ever reach a new settled relationship with the EU. I do not believe that that is what the noble Lord intends, but that is what is being risked. The terms of the vote on the final deal are clear: to accept the terms of the agreement or to move forward without a deal. This is fully in line with the terms on which the European Parliament will be voting: a yes or no vote.
Amendments 196 and 213 are unnecessary because we have already made a strong commitment to hold this vote as soon as possible after the negotiations have concluded.

Lord Adonis: How does the Minister intend to prevent the House of Commons considering the option of remaining in the European Union? How does he intend procedurally to prevent it, given that he has said that that is not going to be an option?

Lord Callanan: I do not control the proceedings of the House of Commons. I can only set out the Government’s position on this matter.
The strength of that commitment and the political and public expectation that accompanies it mean that the Government could not conceivably renege on that commitment.

Lord Patten of Barnes: Perhaps I can help. This is becoming a rather complicated discussion and some of us are trying very hard to follow what the Minister is saying. Perhaps we are not being as intelligent as we should be. In the phrase “a meaningful vote”, what does the word “meaningful” mean?

Lord Callanan: We have never used the term “a meaningful vote”. We recognise clearly the desirability of maximising as much as possible the time between negotiations concluding and a deal coming into force. Knowing the terms of a deal as early as possible is good for business and the public in being able to prepare.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: Pursuant to the earlier question, perhaps I have completely misunderstood what the Prime Minister said, but my understanding was that she promised a meaningful vote. Therefore, it would help if the Minister in summing up the debate we have just had would say what “a meaningful vote” means.

Lord Callanan: I have said on a number of occasions that we will put the outcome of the negotiations to a vote in this House and in the other place and of course we will respect the outcome of that vote.

Lord Bilimoria: I think there is huge confusion here about the Government wanting to implement the “will of the people”. I do not think the British people who voted to leave said we should leave on any basis. This is not just about rejecting a no deal but about rejecting a bad deal. Parliament will not be doing the people a service if we just accept a bad deal when faced with the option of crashing out with no deal or accepting the Government’s deal. The public would never accept that, and we as Parliament should not accept it either.

Lord Callanan: We do not intend to put a bad deal to the vote. As we have said, we want to negotiate the best possible deal that we can. Knowing the terms of a deal as early as possible is good for business and the public, in terms of being able to prepare. It gives confidence and certainty.

Baroness Wheatcroft: When my noble friend, in summing up, clarifies his understanding of “meaningful”, will he tell the Committee whether he believes that a vote after the European Parliament has voted would constitute a meaningful vote?

Lord Callanan: Perhaps the noble Baroness was not listening to what I said earlier. We fully intend the vote to take place before the European Parliament votes.
As I have said, I remain convinced that we will achieve a deal in the interests of all the nations and people in the UK and that this Parliament will approve it. After Parliament supports the resolution to proceed with the withdrawal agreement and the terms for our future relationship, the Government will bring forward a withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill. That Bill was announced on 13 November 2017 by the Secretary of State and followed on 13 December 2017 by a Written Ministerial Statement committing the Government not to implement any parts of the withdrawal agreement until this vote on the final deal takes place. I hope it is clear how the withdrawal agreement will be implemented and that Parliament will have ample opportunity to scrutinise it before it is given effect in our law.
I reassure noble Lords that the withdrawal agreement itself will be subject to the provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 before ratification, in addition to the vote on the final deal that we have already promised and the scrutiny of the implementing legislation. There will therefore be ample opportunity to scrutinise the agreement and its implementation.
I know that many noble Lords have clear concerns about Clause 9 as it is currently drafted—I listened very carefully to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. The Government are listening very carefully to the debate on these concerns and we will take them away to see whether anything can be done ahead of Report to address them.

Lord Beith: What is the point of leaving in this Bill the power to make regulations which can now only be brought into effect once the withdrawal agreement Bill has been passed? Should we not just remove those provisions now and ensure that any provisions included in the withdrawal agreement Bill meet the concerns that the Minister has said he would like to meet?

Lord Callanan: If I can make a little more progress talking about Clause 9, I think the noble Lord will find that his question has been answered.
However, let me ensure that my previous statement is not taken as more significant than it is—

Is it meaningful?

Lord Callanan: Everything I say is meaningful. Although we can look again at elements of the power, we will not be removing it from the Bill in its entirety, as Amendment 194, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who I am glad to see is still with us, would have it.
It is prudent to keep Clause 9 as part of this Bill. We do not yet know the shape or the outcome of future negotiations. It is crucial that we have the necessary legislative mechanisms available to us to  fully implement the withdrawal agreement in time for exit day. There may well be a number of more technical separation issues which will need to be legislated for, depending on the shape of the final agreement. It is long established that where legislation is intended to make smaller, more detailed changes, secondary legislation can be an appropriate vehicle. It is also not uncommon for the principles of an international agreement to be implemented through secondary legislation.
Let me give an example. The Nuclear Installations (Liability for Damage) Order 2016 implements the 2004 protocol to the Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy—a matter with which I am sure noble Lords are fully familiar.
To be clear, however, Clause 9 is not intended to implement major elements of the withdrawal agreement. I understand that this distinction might seem a little abstract so I will demonstrate with a few more illustrative examples, although with the caveat that we cannot know for certain until the withdrawal agreement has been finalised. Clause 9 may be required, for example, to legislate for the position of ongoing administrative proceedings when we leave the EU. This is a broad basket of more technical issues such as proceedings on competition and antitrust under regulation 1/2003 or procedures on the concentration of undertakings/mergers under regulation 139/2004. These are quite complex, technical issues that do not need to be put into any Bill but must be legislated for.
Another area that Clause 9 could be used for relates to the privileges and immunities afforded by the UK to the EU, its institutions, bodies and staff post exit. These are a standard feature of international law and are generally considered necessary for the proper functioning of international organisations. Privileges and immunities for the EU are currently implemented under protocol 7 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. After exit, the EU will continue to require privileges and immunities to cover any functions that it has during the implementation period or for winding down its existing operations, and our agreement on privileges and immunities will need to be implemented in domestic legislation. If noble Lords would like further detail, I encourage them to consult the Hansard record of Committee in the other place where further details were offered on potential examples.
I do not need to remind noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, that the amendment to Clause 9 that was approved in the other place means that the clause can be used only subject to the prior enactment of a statute by Parliament approving the final terms of the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. That is an exceptional check on the power, and of course we stand by that.
I have been left in no doubt of the strength of feeling in the House about Clause 9. As with other contentious areas of the Bill, I look forward to meetings and discussions with noble Lords to see what can be done ahead of Report. With that in mind, I hope noble Lords will not pursue their amendments.

Viscount Waverley: The Minister referred to the CRaG procedure. He may not be aware that the House of Commons put out an Explanatory Note on many  of the issues that we are discussing today. I would like to ask his opinion on a line from it:
“Either House could also use the CRAG procedure to object to ratification of the agreement, and in the case of the Commons, indefinitely block it”.
Would he care to comment?

Lord Callanan: If the noble Viscount will forgive me, I have not read the details of that. I am sure his quote is accurate but I would like to read the whole thing before I comment on it in detail.

Lord Newby: My Lords, the Minister has just said, as he has done several times in Committee, that, first, the Government reject all the amendments but, secondly, they are going to think about it. The clock is ticking and we are not now that far from Report. Saying “I’m going to think about it” may give some noble Lords false hopes that the Minister has it in mind to do something about it. I suggest that in this case, and certainly as we come to future groups, if the Minister seriously has it in mind to produce a government amendment on Report, he says so in terms. Simply saying time after time “We reject this but we’re going to think about it” does doing a House a disservice because, having listened to most of the Minister’s speeches on the Bill, I have the feeling that thinking about it does not appear to be a prelude in the Minister’s mind to any action whatever.

Lord Callanan: I and other Ministers have indicated in response to other groupings of amendments where we are definitely going to be bringing back further amendments on Report. However, we have also made it clear, as I hope many noble Lords in the House today will agree, that we are having further discussions with a number of people who have raised valid concerns to see how those concerns may be addressed. While on many occasions we do not want to go as far as some of the amendments, there may be some reassurances that we can give or modifications that we can suggest. I am not going to give any definite commitments at this stage—that is not how this process works—but we are looking at all the issues and, as I have said on numerous occasions, we will do what we can to take into account the concerns of the House.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, the Minister has got me famously confused now. He said, in a very welcome way just now, that the Government accept that the amendment voted for in the Commons—Amendment 7—provides for the outcome to be subject to a statutory procedure. A little time ago, he said that it was the Prime Minister’s intention to submit the deal to both Houses without a statutory procedure but as a simple resolution. Which comes first, and how do the two relate to each other?

Lord Callanan: There are two stages: once we have a deal, we will put its terms to both Houses, and if we get approval for that deal, we will submit the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill to implement those agreements in statute. I am not sure what is so complicated about that.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: So the Minister’s reading is that the Amendment 7 provision is merely synonymous with the implementing Bill?

Lord Callanan: I do not think I said that. The terms of Amendment 7 are fairly clear. That has been written into Clause 9 by another place, and we will respect that.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: Perhaps I was not paying enough attention, but can I ask my noble friend: if we are going to end up with primary legislation to implement the agreement, why is it necessary to have Clause 9 at all? He gave some examples of particular regulations, but I could not see the link that justified having Clause 9 itself.

Lord Callanan: There are some technical provisions that we may want to use Clause 9 to implement, subject to the provisions of Amendment 7. There is also the political imperative that the House of Commons considered this matter closely and decided to keep Clause 9 in the Bill, albeit modified. We want to respect the will of the House of Commons.

Viscount Waverley: Will the noble Lord write to me on the particular issue he raised on the CRaG procedure for the record?

Lord Callanan: Of course, I would be delighted to do so.

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: My Lords, we have to thank the Minister for his wisdom, his humour, his tolerance—but. One thing with which I agree with the Minister, on which I think I heard him right, is that he appreciates, which I have certainly felt, that there is clear support in Committee for a meaningful vote on the withdrawal deal, or indeed, on no deal. I do not know whether that will be the scorched earth, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, or the absence of a package, suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, but I think we know what we mean by “no deal”.
The question is: what is meaningful? If it is, as I said earlier, a mere Motion, with no statutory force, that surely is not meaningful. But it is not meaningful if it is not timely; in other words, if we do not have it early enough for it to make a difference. I think the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, asked whether it would be a case of like it or lump it. If so, I do not think that would work in either House. Indeed, I was quite concerned at one point when the Minister seemed to say that, if Parliament voted no to the deal, then we would come out without a deal. That is not what some of the amendments in this group want, and we do not want the outcome that if we vote down what there is, we will get the worst of all worlds. We want to put power back into the Commons, so if the decision is that the withdrawal deal will not do, it would be for the Commons to decide what to do about that. Also, the vote needs to be meaningful in that it should influence the choices that the Government will be making, as my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said. That is the point. Knowing they have to come here for a deal will affect what happens in the negotiations, so the outcome will be influenced by a vote here.
It is absolutely clear from what everyone has said that it is for Parliament to endorse, or otherwise, the outcome, which is why I am not tempted by my noble  friend Lord Adonis’s desire for a referendum. I remind him that it was a referendum that got us into this mess in the first place, but that is not the reason. The reason is that, like other speakers, I want to reassert parliamentary sovereignty. That is why we will try to bring back an amendment on Report that will ensure that, if Parliament gives the thumbs-down to the deal, it would be the Commons and not the Government that decides what happens next.
I am surrounded on this side, obviously, by people from the Labour Party. They are, on the whole, experienced at what we call compositing—it may also happen in the other parties. We have compositing meetings where a whole lot of amendments are put together—I see that we are not alone in this—and I say to the Committee and to the Government that I hope it will be possible to devise a single redrafted amendment, building on what we have heard today and on the wording of different amendments in this group, around which we can all rally. There is clearly a meeting of minds on this: there should be a timely and meaningful vote; it should be on the deal or, in the case of no deal, it should decide what happens next.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. If she is minded to bring forward such a composite amendment, if we have established that the CRaG rules apply—this is clearly an international treaty that we are discussing—would she add that the meaningful vote in Parliament should be before votes in the national parliaments as well? That is missing from the current drafts.

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: My understanding is that this will not go to them. We are talking about the withdrawal deal, which will be a deal between the UK Government and the European Union. It is not a mixed agreement; it will not need to go to the parliaments and it is not a treaty. That is what all the legal advice I have had says, but I am happy to be put right. This will not go through that process. We are dealing with two things. The first is how we come out, which is the withdrawal deal. The second, quite separate thing is what will then be our relationship as a third party with the European Union, which will be the treaty. That is what will need to go through the parliaments—sadly not the Welsh Parliament, but there you are. I had understood that this is what CRaG would cover; I had not heard that quote until now.
This amendment focuses on the withdrawal deal, and it is this that should—indeed, must—be taken through Parliament in advance of the European Parliament and, even more importantly, in advance of where the Government finally get to, so that if it has gone the wrong way, we have the chance to put it right. That is what I hope we will be able to bring back on Report, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 150 withdrawn.
Amendments 151 and 152 not moved.

Amendment 153

Moved by Lord Lisvane
153: Clause 9, page 7, line 10, leave out subsection (2)

Lord Lisvane: My Lords, I must convey to the Committee the sincere apologies of my noble and learned friend Lord Judge, who has a long-standing and unbreakable engagement outside the House and who has asked me to move Amendment 153 on his behalf. I will also speak to Amendment 154 in my name.
Both the Constitution Committee, in its ninth report, and the Delegated Powers Committee, in its 12th report, expressed grave doubts about the breadth of the powers contained in Clause 9. They also suggest—as has been touched on by a number of noble Lords in the previous debate—that, as a further Bill is required by the amended Clause 9(1), Clause 9 as a whole is unnecessary, as any regulation-making powers can be included in the Bill that is now contemplated by Clause 9(1). That is a persuasive case, and perhaps it would indeed be better—despite what the Minister said in reply to the previous debate—if Clause 9 were in effect to be deferred to that later Bill.
However, whether it is here or whether it is there, the real mischief at the heart of Clause 9 needs to be cured. Clause 9(2) is a whacking great Henry VIII power, allowing Ministers to make in regulations any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament—something of which my noble and learned friend Lord Judge has been such a trenchant critic. In a piece of legislative pulling oneself up by one’s own bootstraps, it would also allow Ministers to modify the Act which will result from this Bill itself.
The rather measured phrases—“make any provision” and “modifying”—should not mask the extent of the powers. Clause 9(2) would allow Ministers to make regulations that would amend or repeal any Act of Parliament whenever passed. And the power relating to the Act resulting from this Bill would allow Ministers to amend or even repeal it, setting at naught a number of weary hours that your Lordships have spent on this text.
The Delegated Powers Committee set out some ways in which Ministers would be empowered to use SIs, among other things to,
“alter the scope of ‘retained EU law’ so that … it includes EU legislation passed after exit day”,
to keep the supremacy of EU law for certain purposes, with the supervision of the ECJ, or to change the whole basis of the regulation-making powers elsewhere in the Bill so that “necessary or appropriate”—the subject of our argument last Wednesday—would become irrelevant, and the powers could be used for major policy change without restriction.
The Minister rightly said in reply to the previous debate that these powers would have to be used in the terms in which Clause 9 is framed, so they would be about provision relating to the withdrawal. Of course, a parliamentary vote on the withdrawal deal would, or could, in effect be a constraining factor. But the extent of that constraint is wholly dependent on another  factor, which is how much detail is contained in whatever document or test becomes the subject of that meaningful vote.
The power could also be used to remove the Bill’s time limits on the regulation-making power, which at the moment provide at least some reassurance. As with other delegated powers, Ministers have sought to say as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, did in reply to the previous debate. He gave a number of examples—not frightening or alarming ones—of the way in which the powers could be used. I do not for a moment question the good faith in which Ministers give us these examples, but once again one has to emphasise that what matters is what is in the Act. If current Ministers do not use those powers in the ways authorised by the Act, other Ministers may do so.
The Constitution Committee concluded that giving Ministers the powers in Clause 9(2) would require “the strongest of justifications”. The Delegated Powers Committee went further, calling the power, despite its exercise being subject to the affirmative procedure, “wholly unacceptable”.
I have never felt that Henry VIII is an entirely welcome dinner guest—if I may put it like that. But his presence can be made just about tolerable by observing what I would like to call the rule of the three “S”s. The first “S” is scope: the exercise of such a power must be subject to tight constraints. Merely what might be thought “appropriate”—we are back to that again—for the purposes of implementing the withdrawal agreement does not qualify. The second “S” is scrutiny. Even though the affirmative procedure will apply to Clause 9(2) regulations by virtue of paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 7, the opportunities for effective scrutiny are likely to be limited, and the luxury of time for that scrutiny is unlikely to be available. The third “S” to bear in mind when his majesty comes to dinner is sunset. It would generally be better if Henry VIII powers were not on the statute book, but if they are, they should not linger there. Clause 9 provides that,
“No regulations may be made under this section after exit day”.
But as Ministers would have the power to alter exit day, this does not really give the reassurance it suggests. In my submission, therefore, Clause 9 fails those three tests of scope, scrutiny and sunset. It needs major surgery. I beg to move.

Baroness Smith of Newnham: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 153, which also stands in my name. Having been away from your Lordships’ House for several days, I do not feel as though very much progress has necessarily been made in my absence. I come back to hear what I consider Second Reading speeches being made all over again. The reason for my absence was that I could not speak. I had not realised that we could ask other noble Lords to read our speeches for us, so I have not sent in my thoughts in advance. I do not propose to detain the Committee very long today because I might still croak, and the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, has in many ways highlighted the key points.
We have not yet been told why Clause 9 is necessary. In our discussion on the previous group of amendments, my noble friend Lord Beith asked the Minister about  that but did not get an answer. The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, also said that Clause 9 may not be necessary. That is indeed what the Delegated Powers Committee has suggested. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Minister who is to respond to the debate—it may be the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie—would explain in more detail why the Government feel that Clause 9 is necessary. We understand that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is willing to listen and consider possible amendments. If the Government still believe that Clause 9 is necessary, do they consider the fact that any Minister of the Crown may make regulations for amendment perhaps goes rather wide? There are usually up to about 200 Ministers. That seems rather a large number of members of the Executive who might want to exercise their droit du seigneur or other Henry VIII powers.
There seem to be some general issues with Clause 9, but subsection (2) raises particular problems, especially the part in parentheses—the subject of Amendment 154—which allows modification of the Act as a whole. As the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, has just said, that could negate the many hours of scrutiny that have just taken place in your Lordships’ House and which have taken place in the other place. Even if the Government can explain why Clause 9 is necessary, surely subsection (2) goes way beyond the scope that would be desirable.
I turn to the final of the three “S”s mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane: the sunset clause. Clause 9(4) seems to suggest that there is a sunset clause as it states:
“No regulations may be made under this section after exit day”.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, has already made very clear, it is entirely possible that if any Minister of the Crown can make such regulations as they deem necessary following the enactment of a piece of legislation envisaged in subsection (1), they could then deem that subsection (4) could be repealed. Is that not the case? If it is, should that provision not disappear as well?
At the outset of Second Reading, the Government suggested that they were listening. The House of Commons has already amended this legislation but it still leaves open a whole set of questions that need serious review. The Delegated Powers Committee has suggested that Clause 9 is not necessary. That is certainly my belief and I think it is in line with Amendments 153 and 154. But, short of taking the whole clause out, please will the Government think about removing subsection (2), which would at least remove some of the greatest dangers to our democracy? If the intention of voting leave to take back control is to be taken seriously and parliamentary sovereignty is to be regained, surely that means that your Lordships’ House and the other place should make decisions and Ministers should not seek to wield unnecessary executive authority.

Lord Beith: My Lords, I follow my noble friend on her specific point and reiterate the question. On the specific point, we are in even more of an Alice in Wonderland world than she and the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, indicated because under subsection (2) it might be possible to make regulations that delete the provisions of Amendment 7—that is, to remove the words,
“subject to the prior enactment of a statute by Parliament approving the final terms of withdrawal”.
That might be something that was thought appropriate by Ministers because they felt they had to get on with something before Parliament had got to the stage of considering withdrawal. It is possible under this provision. It seems clear from all those who have looked carefully at it that the way Clause 9 is worded really needs drastic surgery, if I may use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane.
This brings me back to the question that I have tried, by brief intervention on two occasions so far, to get an answer to: why do the Government want to persist in including in the Bill the first half of Clause 9(1) and the remaining subsections? Following the inclusion of the Amendment 7 provisions, the proper place for whatever powers are needed for statutory instruments arising from the withdrawal agreement is the withdrawal agreement Bill. We would have plenty of time between now and then to make sure that they are expressed in terms not open to the abuses that several of us have pointed out. Why do the Government still want these words in the Bill?

Lord Chidgey: My Lords, I support Amendments 153 and 154—so eloquently introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane—particularly on the issue of providing Ministers with those broad-ranging Henry VIII powers. As the noble Lord pointed out, the range of the powers covered, includes repealing Acts of Parliament and statutory instruments, and extends to most areas of law—the whole caboodle, basically, will be under the control of Ministers. It really shows why these powers go to the heart of the sovereignty of Parliament. We have heard some amazing speeches today about the importance of retaining the integrity of Parliament. If we really want to take back control for Parliament, we have to concentrate on making sure that we do not give Ministers unlimited powers.
Noble Lords will know that I spend a lot of time working overseas and consequently it is quite uncommon for me to find myself discussing amendments to Bills going through the House. I am not here often enough to be so involved. However, in this House and the other place, I, like many other noble Lords, have escorted constituents, visiting parliamentarians and guests on tours of the Palace of Westminster. Like many other noble Lords, I found that invariably, one of the party will say how important it is to them to visit the mother of Parliaments, by which they mean the heart of democracy and the modern democratic process: the Westminster model where the Executive is accountable to Parliament through a transparent balance.
I spent well over a decade here, in the other place and in dozens of foreign locations working with parliamentarians in or from developing countries. I worked with counterparts, often in the process of discovering the power of parliaments to hold their Executives to account and what transparency and accountability in a parliamentary process should mean. As we debate this Brexit Bill, the world is watching. The nations of the Commonwealth are watching. Only this morning, a group of Kenyan MPs on a Select  Committee in their Parliament came to have coffee with me to talk about what Brexit would mean for them as well as for us.
These amendments help to ensure that, in passing this Bill, Henry VIII powers to bypass parliamentary scrutiny are not introduced and the principles of transparency and democracy, on which this mother of Parliaments was founded—and is therefore admired and imitated throughout the world—are protected.
Another issue that comes to mind straightaway is that we are on the verge of holding a Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in London, for the first time in around 20 years. The United Kingdom Parliament will be fundamental to that process. After that finishes in a week or so, the United Kingdom will become the chair in office of the Commonwealth for the next two years. It will be a tremendous opportunity for us to reinforce—perhaps to absorb completely into the Commonwealth process—the principles and ideals on which we believe our democracy is founded. The world is watching the way we deal with Brexit.
Finally, the term “mother of Parliaments” is often misapplied. Many noble Lords will know that it was first coined by John Bright MP in the 19th century during his fight for the repeal of the corn laws, which has already been mentioned today. One of the great orators of his day, Bright was referring to England and its people as the mother of Parliaments, not Westminster. If we truly want to take back control, we must ensure that the power of Parliament remains in the hands of the people’s representatives: their MPs, not Ministers. I confirm my support for these amendments.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I completely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, just said. Noble Lords might be forgiven for thinking that in the exhaustive debate on the previous group of amendments the cause of democracy was well and truly vindicated. However, the defects these amendments seek to rectify are just as much of an onslaught on democracy, for the reasons so well set out by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. I therefore hope that the Government will take them into account in a total redraft of Clause 9.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, first, I hope that “appropriate” will disappear in any event, and that it will be replaced with “necessary”. This clause appears to be drafted especially to deal with a situation where, once the withdrawal Bill is passed, a number of important things have to be done before exit day. I hope that the House of Commons will have the opportunity to consider these. The reference here is quite clearly to something that is required in implementing the withdrawal agreement. We have only to listen to the amendments that were dealt with this morning to know the tremendous complexity that this withdrawal Bill is bound to have—I only hope that it will have it and that we will have an agreement that will be incorporated in a withdrawal agreement Bill, which will deal with these complications. However, if they are dealt with, it is quite obvious that quite a number of things will have to be dealt with speedily that will be brought into effect on exit day. For example,  where the authority controlling a particular line of business is no longer effective because of the withdrawal agreement, it may be necessary, to preserve that, to have some form of regulation that sets up an alternative, so that there is a control; for example, with regard to the things that were mentioned this morning, food safety.
It is therefore possible that in some situations the regulations will require modification of existing Acts of Parliament. The substance of this clause is therefore of importance, and we may have to consider it in a bit more detail. I hope that the Minister, when she comes to reply, will be able to give us some examples of the kind of thing that can happen. However, it would be dangerous not to make provision in case that kind of thing happens. The withdrawal agreement Bill will be complicated enough, so if we can make some preparation for it, that would be of benefit.

Lord Beith: I am sure the noble and learned Lord is right, but the Government cannot do any of these things until the withdrawal agreement Bill has been passed; therefore the kind of provision he is talking about might more appropriately be made in that Bill than this one.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I can see that. On the other hand, it is sometimes wise to be prepared if you can foresee a thing that is required and have it ready. We also have the scope to discuss it in this Bill, whereas I imagine the discussions on the withdrawal agreement Bill will be pretty complicated—I assume the latter will be a good deal more complicated than this Bill, and if it is going to require the sort of consideration that this Bill has had it will take some time. There is something to be said for trying to prepare, but of course it is necessary to ensure that the preparations are adequate—that is what the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, deals with.
I am conscious that we may be trying to regulate the House of Commons a bit. I have never had the honour of being a Member of the House of Commons, as so many of your Lordships have, but my impression is that the House of Commons has plenty of powers to control what the Government do. Of course, if necessary, it has a very extreme power in that connection.

Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I mentioned on Monday that an aspect of Clause 9(2) is of concern to the devolved Administrations. How does the Sewel convention fit into the scheme which Clause 9(2) sets out? If one were making the amendments which are being contemplated by an Act of Parliament it would be plain that the Sewel convention, with its effects, would apply to that statute—and the Government have always shown their willingness to follow the convention according to its terms. But if a Minister makes a provision by delegated legislation then, as I understand it, the Sewel convention does not apply, because Sewel was talking about primary legislation. Is the Minister prepared to undertake that the principle of the Sewel convention will apply to an order made with reference to Clause 9(2), which makes a provision that would otherwise be made by an Act of Parliament?
The importance of this question has been highlighted, if I may say so, by the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, because by necessity this would have to deal with legislation which affects the devolved Administrations in areas devolved to them. The ordinary rule is that that would not be done without their consent. Clarification is needed. The Minister may feel that she cannot give me a clear answer today. If she cannot give the undertaking that I am looking for, I would be very grateful if she would write, because this affects the way I would view any vote on this issue. It may also affect what we talk about on Report.
This is a very important matter. The issue has really been thrown up by the way in which the clause has been drafted—and it has no doubt been drafted in this way for good reasons, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, has explained. If one is to have this clause, clarification is required.

Lord Bilimoria: My Lords, I support both these amendments. I appreciate what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, with all his experience, has said to us to try to explain why these particular clauses exist and the intention behind them. But from my experience in business, whenever I have had any problems with a contract it is because there have been grey areas or clauses have not been clearly drafted, leaving scope for different interpretations. Here we are beyond grey areas or a badly drafted clause in a contract—this Bill gives unfettered powers to the Government. We have to realise that the Prime Minister using these powers may not be Theresa May—it could be Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees-Mogg.
How many thousands of statutory instruments are the Government expecting to implement as a result of this Bill? It is important to note that it is very difficult for the House of Lords to challenge statutory instruments. With primary legislation, we have the role of challenging what the Commons has done—as we are doing now. Quite often what the Commons does is nowhere near good enough. That is why this House has hundreds of amendments to this Bill and had over 500 amendments to the higher education Bill. That is our job. But when it comes to statutory instruments, we were warned very clearly in 2015, “Don’t go too far. It’s not your job to challenge them too much”. The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, in his excellent introduction to his amendment, spoke of the three “S”s, one of which is scrutiny, but we will be deprived of that scrutiny by these unlimited powers.
Going one step further, this issue goes back to the constitution and the delicate balance between not only the Executive and the legislature but the Executive and the judiciary. Will the Minister acknowledge that statutory instruments can be challenged by the judiciary? Do we want to have non-stop challenge by the judiciary, overriding Parliament, when we should have the power and take back control? Do we want that to happen? It is much better that things are absolutely clear. Therefore, these amendments are crucial, because it is too dangerous and, quite frankly, irresponsible to give any Government such unfettered powers.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, in this regard. My question goes to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, about scrutiny. Of course, he is the living expert on the level of scrutiny that an Act of Parliament enjoys in each House at every stage of parliamentary procedure. If the Government are seeking by regulation to achieve the equivalent of what has previously been achieved by an Act of Parliament, do the Minister and the Government have in mind what the level of scrutiny will be? Will it be the usual statutory instrument procedure, and will it be by affirmative or negative resolution?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, we strongly support these amendments, Amendment 153 having been co-signed by my noble friend Lady Hayter. It would remove Clause 9(2) from the Bill entirely, and the more limited Amendment 154 would remove what are probably the most damaging words from it but not the whole of it.
This is the widest of the Henry VIII powers that the Government want to take in this Bill. It would permit regulations to do anything that an Act of Parliament could do, including even amending this Bill, when an Act. Those are the words that Amendment 154, in particular, focuses on. Therefore, as has been said, we could find that, after lengthy debate and a vote in this House and in the other place, the resulting provisions so painfully and lengthily resolved could simply be removed by the decision of a Minister.
The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, gave some examples and the noble Lord, Lord Beith, gave more dramatic examples, but the critical question is: why is this needed? First, as the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, rightly said, nobody should be misled by the words that are used. The word “modifying” might suggest at first blush that the provision is doing something less substantial, but in fact the definition of “modify” in Clause 14(1) makes it clear that it,
“includes amend, repeal or revoke”,
so the modification in question could take whole provisions away altogether.
The second point to underline—again, the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane and Lord Bilimoria, made this clear—is that what matters is not good intentions expressed at the moment by the Ministers in charge but what the Act actually provides. As parliamentarians, we would be failing in our job of scrutinising and controlling the Executive if we left Ministers with untrammelled powers simply on the basis that we would expect or hope that they would use them in a particular way or on the basis of them saying that they would not intend to use them in a particular way. That is not what we should do at all.
Therefore, it is no wonder that your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, in paragraph 23 of its report, described this power as “wholly unacceptable”, and that the Constitution Committee, in paragraph 197 of its report, described it as one for which it “cannot see any justification”. I know that the Government’s argument will be that they do not know what will be in the withdrawal agreement and therefore they do not yet know what changes will need to be made, including to primary  legislation—for example, to the Immigration Act. However, there is neither a need to take these powers, nor is it right to do so, for two reasons.
First, it is clear that our withdrawal must be subject to the prior enactment of a statute by Parliament approving the final terms of withdrawal—that is what Clause 9 will provide. So if the withdrawal agreement requires changes which cannot be effected by other powers—such as the power to deal with deficiencies under Clause 7—such changes can be incorporated into the statute approving the terms of withdrawal. Not only can such changes be included in that statute; they ought to be, because then they could be subject to a degree of parliamentary scrutiny. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said about the significance of scrutiny in this context. They could be subject to the degree of parliamentary scrutiny and approval which important changes to primary legislation should require.
The Delegated Powers Committee noted:
“The Government propose to take very wide-ranging secondary and tertiary legislative powers in the Bill, which would appear to cover every possible need to deal with failures and deficiencies in retained EU law as we leave the EU. Given the sheer width of these powers, it is difficult to conceive of areas where the proposed powers are not sufficient. However if the final withdrawal agreement includes something that is not capable of being legislated for under the regulation-making powers of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, then Parliament should legislate rather than Ministers. Parliament is capable—
we all have experience of this—
“of passing urgent Bills with extraordinary expedition”.
Paragraph 197 of the Constitution Committee’s report, to similar effect, said
“As the clause 9 power cannot be used until a further Act has been passed—likely to be the withdrawal and implementation bill”—
which is what the Minister told us in a previous debate—
“we cannot see any justification for the inclusion of the power in this Bill. Parliament will be better placed to scrutinise the appropriateness of such a power, and the restrictions and safeguards it might require, when the terms of the withdrawal agreement are known”.
The committee recommended removal of that clause.
That is the answer I give to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I hope he knows the high regard in which I and the House hold him, but in circumstances where there is to be an Act, where there are other powers to remove and make changes, this particular wide, untrammelled power is not necessary.
In addition to the strong constitutional reasons why this extraordinary power should not be left to be used by one of the many Ministers who have the power to issue regulations is the reason that it is remarkably widely drawn. We have debated in previous amendments that the formula used here—such provision as the Minister considers appropriate—suffers from the defect that it is both subjective and open ended. As I ventured to advise your Lordships in a previous debate, speaking from my own experience as a former Minister, adviser to Ministers and a practising lawyer, the exercise of a power so broadly expressed would be difficult, if not impossible, to challenge. The noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, put it memorably in the  debate last week as another example of Ministers being given plump pillows of legal protection. That is an additional reason to object to this provision.
However, the primary constitutional reason that I have tried to identify still remains. I hope therefore that, in addition to answering the questions that have been put—including the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and others as to why the power is needed, and the question raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, as to the application of the Sewel convention—the Minister, when he replies, will indicate why the Government, in these circumstances, consider the power necessary; and whether they can now see, in the light of the changes made to Clause 9 and the other powers that exist, that they do not need it.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this has turned into a clause stand part debate by any other name and I have been listening to it very carefully. The second amendment in this group would remove the words in Clause 9(2), “(including modifying this Act)”. This is rather curious because I know that many of your Lordships voted against Brexit in the referendum and in their heart of hearts still believe and hope that Brexit will never happen. That applies not only to noble Lords but also to Members of another place. But those words, of course, would include exactly what they want; namely, the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972.

Baroness Goldie: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, for his contribution and other noble Lords for their comments. This has been a genuinely interesting debate on a very important issue. When I was asked to respond to this group of amendments, I suspected that I had drawn the short straw. I realise that there are various parts of this Bill which for your Lordships are indigestible, but I think that what tops the list of gastric turbulence is the deployment of Henry VIII powers. Let me start by saying that if, when I have finished speaking, it remains the view of this Committee that subsection (2) of Clause 9 is a constitutional abomination, I shall faithfully reflect that view to my colleagues in the other place who ultimately determine the Government’s position. Having given that undertaking, I hope that noble Lords will permit me the opportunity to attempt to persuade them that subsection (2) is in fact a proportionate approach to the position in which we find ourselves, a question which has been very legitimately posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. For the benefit of them both, here I go.
It all starts from the Government’s commitment, which I hope is welcomed by all noble Lords, to ensuring that the outcome of the negotiations under Article 50 can be implemented in time for day one of our exit from the European Union. This Bill is designed to provide the essential legislative mechanisms to ensure that the UK statute book can continue to function once we have left the European Union. It would be wrong to pre-empt the outcome of the negotiations, and it is crucial that we have sufficient flexibility to make changes to the Bill to ensure that its provisions do not ultimately contradict the agreement that we have reached as to the terms of our withdrawal.
It is not unprecedented to create powers that are able to amend the very Bill in which they are created. Of course, we would expect the exercise of such powers to be subject to parliamentary control, as is the case within this Bill. Your Lordships may ask with some justification whether there are any precedents for this. I can point noble Lords to the Enterprise Act 2002 and the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010, which also confer powers to amend their own Acts. Noble Lords will note that these Acts were passed when those opposite me were sitting on the Government Benches. Arguably, we are being transparent in that we have made it explicit that this particular power might need to be used to amend the Bill once it is enacted. By doing so, we are also making it clear that the other powers in the Bill cannot be used to do so, and of course, as with all the other uses of Clause 9, it could only be used to make provisions to implement a withdrawal agreement on which Parliament would already have voted.
In the present circumstances and given the inherent uncertainty of what the withdrawal agreement will contain at the detailed level, it is vital that we are prepared for scenarios where we need to modify any Act to give effect to the withdrawal agreement in domestic legislation. It is recognised by both the Opposition and the Government that in our preferred negotiated outcome, some amendments may have to be made to the EU withdrawal Act—for example, to facilitate an implementation period. This is an inevitable consequence of the uncertainty that arises from the ongoing negotiation.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: My noble friend is referring to a situation that presumably would take place under the next Bill, when we have agreed the deal and then lay out the ground rules of the transitional arrangements and our future relationship. I am confused by what the timeframe for these regulations under Clause 9(2) will be, because subsection (4) clearly states:
“No regulations may be made under this section after exit day”.
If the Bill reaches Royal Assent by June this year, for example, how will we have enough time to scrutinise—under subsection (2)—any regulations adopted before that time? It is all very confusing.

Baroness Goldie: If I can continue, I might be able to reassure my noble friend by giving some illustrations of where the Government anticipate these powers may need to be used.

Lord Goldsmith: Before the Minister resumes—without wishing to interrupt her further—can I just take her back to the point she made about the Enterprise Act and the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act? I do not have them in front of me, but does she agree that they are Acts of a very different nature to the constitutional Act that this Bill—and the surrounding legislation—gives rise to and were not subject to the same degree of scrutiny as the current legislation is being subjected to?

Baroness Goldie: I was merely trying to be helpful in giving your Lordships some indication of what already exists. I was simply reassuring your Lordships  that the Government were not having some legislative aberration by introducing powers just for the sheer merriment of doing so.
There have been some suggestions that we should make changes now but I would submit that that is simply not responsible. We cannot be certain of the exact detail of the withdrawal agreement until the final text has been agreed, and attempting to second-guess its content by legislating for it now would be premature and ill advised. We need to be prepared. Let me give an example; I hope this will reassure my noble friend Lady McIntosh. In earlier debates in Committee, various noble Lords asked the Government to give clarity, for example, on the status of cases that are pending at the Court of Justice of the European Union at the moment of the UK’s withdrawal. The Government suggested that such clarity was desirable but can only be provided through a legally binding agreement with the EU. Before that point, we can legislate for what we would like the CJEU to do, but we can have no certainty as to whether it would actually do it.
It is our clear hope and expectation that we will reach a withdrawal agreement that includes provision that UK cases pending before that court on exit day will continue through to a binding judgment, as set out in the joint report published in December. As noble Lords know, that agreement would then be put to a vote in both Houses of Parliament. After that point, if the UK Government, Parliament and the EU have all assented to the proposition that these cases should continue to a conclusion, amendments may be required to the EU withdrawal Act to facilitate that agreement. That was the point my noble friend Lady McIntosh was making. Bearing in mind the limited number of those cases in practice—and the level of agreement that would already have been demonstrated to the general proposition—it does not seem to me unreasonable that it should be open to the Government to implement it by secondary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, asked a very fair question about how many regulations we anticipate making. I do not think it will be extensive, for the very reason that this clause is cut off on exit day.

Lord Beith: Under the provisions of Clause 9, that could not be done before the passage of the withdrawal agreement Act. Therefore, should it be necessary, that can be done in that Act, either by specific provisions in the Act—which most of us would prefer—or by statutory instruments provided for under the Act. Nothing can happen before the withdrawal agreement Act is passed, so the idea that this will help with situations in the meantime is not valid.

Baroness Goldie: I understand what the noble Lord is saying, and I accept in principle that that is a fair assessment of the position, but that is not to say that that should preclude the flexibility to deal with something if it does arise. That is why the Government maintain that there is an argument to justify retention of this provision.

Lord Goldsmith: To take that slightly further, following the question from the noble Lord, Lord Beith, if the withdrawal agreement provides that, after exit, there  will be some continuing cases that can be decided by the CJEU, that is what the withdrawal agreement will say, and that, therefore, can easily be provided for in the implementation of the withdrawal agreement legislation, can it not?

Baroness Goldie: No one is saying that it could not be; it is just that there may be advantage in anticipating that and trying to introduce an earlier and swifter procedure to deal with it. I suppose that that, in essence, is the justification or argument that the Government are advancing: we want both flexibility and, if necessary, rapidity in responding to whatever situations are there.

Lord Goldsmith: If, as the noble Baroness’s answer suggests, it does not need to be done in this way but can be done in the other way we are suggesting, that really answers the question that has been posed to the Government, why do you need this wide-ranging, constitutionally unacceptable power? The answer appears to be that the Government do not need it, because it can be done in the way that others have indicated.

Baroness Goldie: I accept the noble and learned Lord’s argument, but I respond by saying that in a sense we are trying to ensure that we have the maximum flexibility and the ability to respond rapidly. Just because something may be competent to be done elsewhere does not mean that there may not be merit in retaining the power here—a power that, as noble Lords have quite rightly identified, will disappear on exit day.
A number of noble Lords raised the question of scrutiny. I emphasise that the procedure set out in Schedule 7 to the Bill makes clear that such legislation would be under the affirmative procedure; in other words, no regulations to amend the Act itself can be made before Parliament has had the chance to debate and vote on them. The noble Lord, Lord Beith, envisaged a very radical situation. I have to say in response that if that were ever enacted, Parliament would have a very strong view about the proposal he described. That is, indeed, the role, the function and the democratic responsibility of Parliament.
I understand the legitimate concerns that some noble Lords have raised about the seemingly broad scope of the Clause 9 power. It is also worth remembering that after changes made in Committee in the Commons the use of the power is subject to the prior enactment of a statute by Parliament approving the final terms of withdrawal of the UK from the EU. This power is therefore already subject to exceptional constraints, a point helpfully reaffirmed by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, raised a significant matter: how regulations under Clause 9 affect the Sewel convention. I am informed that the Sewel convention applies to primary legislation only and that the Government will not make provision in devolved areas under the Bill without consulting the devolved Administrations and would not normally do so without their agreement. I hope that to some extent that meets the point that the noble and learned Lord was raising.

Lord Hope of Craighead: I am very grateful to the Minister for that answer but my point really is, what happens if the Minister of State decides to exercise the  power? Obviously, the question in the first instance is whether the devolved legislatures would give consent to what is in the Bill, but my question is directed to the next stage, which is the exercise of the power, which the Minister has quite rightly said is not covered expressly by the Sewel convention. The question is whether the principle that underlies it would apply to the exercise of the power when it is exercised by a Minister of State. It may be that Ministers would like to think about that before giving a definitive answer, because it is a very important question and relates to something we may have to come back to on Report.

Baroness Goldie: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for teasing that out. I shall undertake to investigate and to write to him on the point.
I have presented my case. I realise from the responses to my presentation that this may not have been the most persuasive or cogent advancement of my position and I recognise that changing the Committee’s mind on this may be a tall order, but I hope I have, for your Lordships at least, made this fare a little more digestible. I urge noble Lords to reflect on the arguments I have advanced. As I have said, though, if the view of the Committee is ultimately that this element of the Bill remains unpalatable, I shall take that view away and we can see where we are on Report. In the meantime, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Lisvane: I thank the Minister for responding to the debate with her customary courtesy, precision and humour. She invited us to consider some precedents. It called to mind the occasion in 1881 when Speaker Brand introduced into the House of Commons, on his own initiative and without any consultation, the concept of the closure. He came under a great deal of fire rather quickly for this so he asked my learned predecessor, Sir Thomas Erskine May, to find him a reason for having done it. May, after a rapid and I think somewhat fevered search, discovered a precedent in 1603. He said later that he had discovered something that convinced the House of Commons better than any argument: “I have found a precedent”. In this case I have to say with great respect to the Minister that I did not find her precedents particularly compelling. If one identifies something which in legislative terms is rebarbative and not particularly acceptable, the fact that it has been done once is a very poor argument for repeating the offence.
I agreed with I think everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said. Indeed, in my short time in your Lordships’ House I do not believe that I have been guilty of disagreeing with anything he has said. He made a point about timing which I think is very important. It may well be that, in contemplation of the withdrawal arrangements, provision can be made under Clauses 7 and 8, according to the restricted purposes set out in those clauses—although not particularly restricted—in which case the solution would be to make SIs, and I would hope that they would be subject to the affirmative procedure. Although the noble Baroness invited us to think that the affirmative procedure is a simply wonderful thing, it is not even half a loaf in legislative terms; it is a great deal less. However, it could be done by those means with delayed commencement dates. I agree entirely with the noble  and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that if these requirements are known, the best course is to find a way of putting them in primary legislation, with all the controls and scrutiny that would attract.
I do not know how sensitive my radar is but I think I detect some serious doubts, still, around the Chamber about Clause 9(2), and certainly about the last part of Clause 9(2), so I think it may be that the noble Baroness will be taken up on her very generous offer to reflect those doubts in the appropriate quarter before we take these provisions forward. In that spirit I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 153 withdrawn.
Amendments 154 to 161 not moved.

Amendment 161A

Moved by Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
161A: Clause 9, page 7, line 17, at end insert—“( ) amend or vary the provisions of the Immigration Act 1971 relating to passport control procedures on journeys within the Common Travel Area.”

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I cede to my noble friend Lord Hain who will lead on this group and then I will speak to my amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Hain: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws for enabling me to speak to this amendment on the common travel area and to Amendment 198 in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Suttie, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake. It seeks to deliver into statute what the Government agreed with the EU on 8 December:
“The Good Friday or Belfast Agreement reached on 10th April, 1998 by the United Kingdom Government, the Irish Government and the other participants in the multi-party negotiations (the ‘1998 Agreement’) must be protected in all its parts, and that this extends to the practical application of the 1998 Agreement on the island of Ireland and to the totality of the relationships set out in the Agreement.”
My noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton will also address this specifically on Amendment 215, an important amendment that he has tabled with the support of other noble Lords—and noble Baronesses.
We scarcely need to remind ourselves that the Good Friday agreement, which my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen negotiated, was a triumph of politics over violence in post-conflict Northern Ireland. When I spoke in this place over a year ago, I said that a hard Brexit and the hard border that would inevitably follow it would test the delicate balance of the three strands of the Good Friday agreement—relationships within Northern Ireland, between Belfast and Dublin and between London and Dublin—on which the peace settlement is based. That, sadly, is coming to pass.
The Good Friday agreement was a good-faith effort to take the toxin out of identity politics in Northern Ireland, where those who identified themselves as Irish could live with those who identified themselves as British and with those who see themselves as Northern Irish. There is no doubt that since Brexit, which the  majority of people in Northern Ireland voted against, the divisive politics of identity is coming increasingly to the fore again. That is profoundly disturbing. Meanwhile, there has not been a local Administration for over a year—an equally profound government failure. Relations north and south are also deteriorating, to the extent that a senior member of the party propping up the Government can publicly call the Taoiseach a “nutcase”, and “not Indian” but a cowboy. To get the full flavour of that particular witticism, noble Lords need to know that Leo Varadkar’s father was born in Mumbai.
The tensions between the UK leaving the EU and Ireland remaining in it are clear. Following the phase 1 joint report on Article 50 on 8 December, the EU produced a 120-page document setting out the legal framework for fallback positions in the absence of agreement between the UK and the EU on the way forward. There were howls of protest and the Prime Minister rejected it out of hand, but where is the Government’s legal framework setting out what they think they signed up to on 8 December? Presumably, it sits alongside the Brexit Secretary’s impact assessments.
We are still desperately unprepared for Brexit and this is no more evident than on Northern Ireland. The UK Government, having agreed with the EU three months ago in the phase 1 agreement to maintain a frictionless border to preserve the Good Friday agreement, continue to fail completely to demonstrate how they can combine an open Irish border with the UK remaining outside both the single market and the customs union with the European Union. There is a simple reason for that—they cannot. Yet in her desperate attempt to keep her Cabinet—never mind her party—together, the Prime Minister continues to spin platitudes and delusion. Just last week, she was still maintaining that the United States/Canada border could be a model for an open border in Ireland. This is just nonsense. There are armed guards patrolling that border; there are flags on it; there is infrastructure on it—all the things that were specifically promised would not be on the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. If they were, they would be recruiting sergeants for mayhem, civil disobedience and attack.
Ministers still maintain the fiction that technology is the answer. All technological solutions require resources, infrastructure and preparation to implement. They do not substitute for the need for checks and inspections but merely aid the efficiency in crossing the border legitimately and identifying potential breaches of compliance or false declarations. As the former Permanent Secretary at the Department for International Trade, Martin Donnelly, has made clear, on the Northern Ireland border there is absolutely no evidence, and no serious expert in the customs field, who thinks that there can be an invisible technological border. He said that it does not exist anywhere in the world.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I am most interested but I wonder whether the noble Lord has looked at the evidence given to the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union in the House of Commons by the head of Customs and Excise, who said that whatever the outcome of the talks, there would be no need for infrastructure on the Irish border.

Lord Hain: I know that evidence has been given but I simply stick to what I have argued, supported by the former Permanent Secretary at the Department for International Trade, who is an authority on these matters.
I remind your Lordships of the report of the Public Accounts Committee in the other place, published last December. It said:
“Government departments’ poor track record of delivering critical border programmes, such as e-borders, leaves us sceptical that they are up to the challenges of planning for the border post-Brexit”.
The Foreign Secretary compares it all to the congestion charge between council areas in London. Sadly, he knows little about the issues and cares even less.
The single market and customs union are not political deals but rules-based legal entities. As an EU member state, the UK has rightly insisted on the strict and consistent enforcement of these rules. Brexiteers, no doubt including the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, pretend that the EU can pick and choose to satisfy the UK that we can have all the benefits of being in the customs union and single market with none of the obligations, and that we can have an open Irish border while rejecting all the rules for keeping it open. That is like saying, “I want my country to play in the World Cup but I won’t recognise the offside rule”.
The success of the Good Friday agreement was that it made the border between the two parts of Ireland virtually uncontentious, both to nationalists, because it had to be completely open, and to unionists, because any constitutional change in Northern Ireland’s status could occur only with a referendum. The threat to it which Brexit poses was eminently foreseeable. It is important also to note that the 1998 agreement is not a domestic contract or statement of intent; it is an international treaty between two states. The British and Irish Governments are bound in international law to implement the terms of this agreement. Its legal precedent is the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement, signed by Margaret Thatcher, which gave the Irish Government a right of consultation in the affairs of Northern Ireland. The 1998 agreement makes formal recognition of the Irish Government’s,
“special interest in Northern Ireland and … the extent to which issues of mutual concern arise in relation to Northern Ireland”.
The agreement expressed the British Government’s wish to “develop still further” close co-operation with Ireland.
Strands 2 and 3 of the 1998 agreement, the cross-border and British-Irish strands, are international by nature and their future cannot be determined solely by the will of this Parliament. The British Government are legally bound, in partnership with the Irish Government, to ensure that the functions and objectives of this co-operation are unimpeded by withdrawal from the European Union.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, on the question of the Good Friday agreement, did my noble friend notice the significant exchange that took place in the House on Monday between my noble friend Lord Judd and the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth? When my noble friend Lord Judd said,
“could the noble Lord confirm that the amendments to be brought forward by the Government will make absolutely sacrosanct the principle of the preservation of the Good Friday agreement?”,
the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, replied,
“My Lords, I certainly can confirm that”.—[Official Report, 12/3/18; col. 1397.]
So the Government appear to have committed themselves to bringing forward amendments, I assume on Report, to enshrine their obligation to observe the Good Friday agreement.

Lord Hain: If that is the case, as my noble friend has reminded us, then the Government should be supporting this amendment and putting it into statute.
During the referendum campaign in 2016 two former Prime Ministers, Sir John Major and Tony Blair, both of whom made significant contributions to the peace process, gave speeches in Derry/Londonderry, in which they stressed that imposing a hard border between the north and the south of the island of Ireland would threaten the very basis of the peace process and the stability that the island of Ireland has enjoyed. Both have cogently reinforced their case in recent weeks and are as alarmed as any of us privileged to have served as Ministers in Northern Ireland.
There are more crossing points along this 310-mile border than there are along the whole of the EU’s eastern frontier: 257 compared with 137. The border crosses family farms and separates towns and villages from their natural hinterlands. It is both invisible and ever present, both unremarkable and deeply contested. Even the younger generation on both sides of the border associates the very idea of border controls with conflict and collective trauma. As well as the formal movement of goods, there are many services from cross-border medical and pharmaceutical transactions to people and data movements between supply chains north and south and the infrastructure issues: energy, telecoms, air and rail travel, environmental standards and so on. If, as the Prime Minister insists, Brexit means the UK leaving the customs union and the single market—a rules-based legal entity, not just a political agreement—then Brexit would unavoidably mean the introduction of a hard Irish border.

Lord Wigley: Is my noble friend aware that the European Parliament has today voted by 554 votes to 110 for a framework agreement that supports seeking UK associate status but that the necessary frictionless trade can be guaranteed only by membership of both the customs union and the single market? That underlines the point he is making.

Lord Hain: I understood that this was a proposal being put by, I think, the leader of the European Parliament, Guy Verhofstadt. I am grateful that my noble friend has brought it to the attention of the Committee.
A hard border is one that consists of layers of barriers to movement—that is, tariffs, quotas, bans and regulations—and requires strict conditions and evidence of compliance to cross: declarations, inspections, authorisations, visas and permits. However, while harder borders require greater means of control and management by states, it is not the visibility of a border that determines how hard it is. The experience of a harder border is felt away from the border line in the obstacles faced by an individual or business when seeking to cross it legally to work, trade or operate on the other  side. Hard border arrangements therefore threaten the evolution of a successful all-island economy, which is essential to the economic development and long-term prosperity of Northern Ireland.
A combination of the conditions of EU membership and the operation of the 1998 agreement has enabled cross-border economies of scale, supply chains, public service delivery and practical co-operation to flourish. These are particularly essential in areas, such as those in the central border region, which have suffered the consequences of multiple deprivation and conflict.
It is estimated that 30,000 people commute across the border every day. Around 1 million HGVs, more than 1 million vans and 12 million cars move between Northern Ireland and the Republic every year. Northern Ireland is also a vital route to market for goods from the Republic, with the UK acting as a land bridge to markets in the EU 27—some of the goods going through Wales, I might add. Approximately 40% of container movements to or from the island of Ireland go through Northern Ireland.
Also threatened are 142 areas of north-south co-operation that have developed as a result of the implementation of the 1998 agreement. These range from an all-island regime for animal health and welfare to shared infrastructure and emergency healthcare planning and provision. They bring direct benefits to people on both sides of the border, and much of this co-operation relies on regulatory alignment across it. For example, Dublin Airport is the main entry and exit point for air travel for Northern Ireland, around half of whose residents use it for holiday travel. Brexit will also require a new aviation agreement between the UK and EU member states if there is not to be disruption to flights to and from Ireland to the UK.
One of the most tangible successes in economic co-operation post the Good Friday agreement is the single wholesale electricity market, known as the SEM. A report by the House of Lords European Union Sub-Committee on Energy and Environment, published on 29 January 2018, stated:
“The Single Electricity Market (SEM) on the island of Ireland has been a key dividend of the peace process, reducing energy prices in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and helping to achieve decarbonisation targets. It is therefore vital that the SEM is able to continue post-Brexit. Given that its functioning requires the implementation of EU energy laws in Northern Ireland, the mechanics of maintaining the SEM will require careful consideration and new arrangements, particularly if the UK were to leave the Internal Energy Market”.
Food and agribusiness, worth more than £4.5 billion, form the largest cross-border trading sector, relying hugely on EU membership for everything from farmer payments to tariff-free exports. The sector operates on a de facto all-island basis. Examples include the 594 million litres of milk that are imported from Northern Ireland for processing in Ireland. If import tariffs or even non-tariff barriers were put in place, that could decimate the Irish milk-processing sector. Nearly all the wheat grown in Ireland is sent north for milling and then re-imported back to Ireland. Nearly 40% of Northern Irish lamb is processed in the Republic, while a significant volume of pigs and cattle from the south are processed in Northern Ireland. The Bushmills distillery, the oldest  working brewery in Northern Ireland, which claims to have invented single malt before the Scots and is located on the beautiful coast of County Antrim, has trucks making 13,000 border crossings each year.
The 1998 agreement was drawn up in the context of shared UK and Irish membership of the EU, and its practical implementation centres on continued regulatory alignment. UK withdrawal from the EU means that the trajectories of the UK and Ireland will now diverge. The divergence will be wide-ranging and will happen in law, trade, security, rights, policies and politics. Brexit therefore risks deep fissures between the UK and Ireland and thus puts the Good Friday agreement at risk. Brexit, with its re-emergence of exclusivist definitions of sovereignty, nationalism and state borders, threatens to destabilise the fragile equilibrium in Northern Ireland. There are those in the Cabinet and in the ranks of the ideological hard right who see the Good Friday agreement as a tedious encumbrance to their form of Brexit, rather than as the cornerstone of a hard-won peace process that is not yet complete. They cannot be allowed to put that at risk. That is why this amendment is necessary and why I hope it will be voted on on Report.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, Amendment 161A is tabled in my name and leads this group of amendments. I felt it was right that my noble friend Lord Hain opened the debate because he roamed much more widely that I intend to. Noble Lords will see that Amendment 161A looks at the common travel area and how we might proceed in future with regard to it.
I want to remind the Committee of the background to the common travel area. It is largely a passport-free zone between the UK and Ireland and the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which are not in the EU. Save for a decade-long period of suspension around World War II, a form of common travel area has existed since partition and was maintained throughout the Troubles. The arrangement is complex and its existence is already recognised in the EU context. It is a changing context and is not copper-fastened, but rather left to politics, convention and legislative  reference.
In the United Kingdom, Section 1(3) of the Immigration Act 1971 provides that arrival in and departure from the UK from or to elsewhere in the common travel area cannot be subject to passport or border control. Although the common travel area predates and is separate to EU freedom of movement, a post-Brexit scenario presents novel challenges as well as an opportunity for us to rethink and codify the common travel area on a more effective and principled basis.
I wanted to raise the fact that, at the moment, there really seems very little that is solid around the movement of people. I am talking here not about the movement of trading goods but about the movement of people. As we know, the Government have a policy to create a hostile environment for migrants who end up with irregular status. On current plans, that would in future include migrants from elsewhere in the European Union, with the probable exception of Irish citizens. The  question then turns to how the Government will enforce their desire for such significantly increased migration control while maintaining an open border. If the Government are sincere in saying they do not want a hard border, where will the checking of papers take place and how will it be done? It seems to me and to many that this has been largely overlooked in detailed discussions so far. The position paper is limited to setting out that future UK immigration arrangements will maintain the common travel area free from “routine” border controls.
It looks like an indication that the Government may be considering reviving plans for selective mobile checks on people not perceived to be British or Irish citizens. I want to just think about that. Not that long ago in this House, in 2009, there was a moment when it looked as though the common travel area was endangered. The Government at that time intended having “ad hoc” checks on the land border, because of concerns about illegal immigration, that would target non-British and non-Irish citizens. The suggestion was that there should be passport checks between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The policy was defeated in this House by an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, following concerns raised by Peers in debate and by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission about both racial profiling and internal immigration controls within the United Kingdom. There was very real concern about it.
The proposal envisaged non-common travel area nationals—persons who were neither Irish nor British citizens—having to carry identity documents to cross the land border, with British and Irish citizens not having to do so. But of course unionists in Northern Ireland were very concerned about what this would mean for them. Were they going to have to prove their position as they travelled within their own nation? This prompted the clear question as to the basis on which examining officers would distinguish between the two groups of citizens—people who were entitled to travel and those who were not. In a post-Brexit context, under current plans, there would also be the question of distinguishing between EU citizens who had acquired rights by virtue of residence prior to Brexit, and those EU nationals arriving subsequently who may remain non-visa nationals but will be subject to restrictions. How would this be done? I have been drawing on research by lawyers from both Queen’s University and the University of Ulster, as well as human rights organisations in Northern Ireland, who are concerned about this.
As for potential solutions in a post-Brexit context which would avoid the need for a hard border and the risks of widespread profiling—pulling out people who they think look like foreigners—you would have to make some special arrangement. Members of the negotiation team would have to explore models that would somehow create special circumstances to deal with the Northern Ireland situation. It may have to be that we talk about continued EU freedom of movement into Northern Ireland in an agreement with the European Union to ensure that British citizens in Northern Ireland continue to enjoy equivalent rights to Irish citizens in the jurisdiction—a core principle, as we have heard, of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
I tabled the amendment, and raise these issues, to tease this out. To some extent, it flies in the face of the some of the policing matters that the noble Lord, Lord Patten, who I see in his place, sought to put in place in under the bilateral treaty agreement to avoid problems of this kind in policing and border control. It would not be compatible with the treaty that we have entered into with the Good Friday agreement to require a dual Irish-British citizen, or someone identifying as British, to rely on their British citizenship alone to access entitlements or equal treatment in Northern Ireland. It just comes back to this question: how is it to be done? Are we to have mobile units that will stop people?
Recently there was rather a high-profile litigation case against the Home Office, supported by the equality commission, involving a British woman who was stopped at Belfast City Airport by an immigration officer. The victim, who was not even a passenger but was dropping off a relative at the airport, gave her account of events, which was upheld. She was told by the immigration officer that she had been singled out as she,
“looked foreign and obviously not from here”.
She was black. It is not an isolated case, so there are concerns about that, at one end, but also about what it will mean across the board. How is this to be done? We look forward to hearing, in this testing set of amendments, how this is to be done in a way that will not involve having controls, even mobile ones, that are discriminatory.

Baroness Doocey: My Lords, my reason for putting down Amendment 187A was to ensure that if we are to leave the EU, we do so in a way that does least damage to all the communities that we, as parliamentarians, represent.
Northern Ireland is in some ways a microcosm of the challenges that the UK faces in pursuing Brexit. But Northern Ireland adds further complexities, with delicate issues stemming from the Troubles and the peace process. These have been added to by the current political difficulties following the collapse of the Executive some 15 months ago. Since the signing of the Good Friday agreement nearly 20 years ago, there has been an enormous change in attitudes in Ireland that could not even have been imagined when I was a young girl growing up in Dublin. I am one of many of my generation who grew up in the Republic and who thought of the north as almost a foreign country. When I was a child, I had an uncle who manufactured children’s clothing. When he won a contract to make school uniforms in Northern Ireland, the family greeted this news with as much excitement and awe as if he had been invited to China to make uniforms. That was how alien Northern Ireland was to us: a mere 60 miles away—the same distance as London to Oxford—but light years apart.
Contrast that reaction to how young people today see the border—or rather, do not see it at all: people who have reached adulthood without ever having to experience, first-hand, stops and checks as they travel from one part of Ireland to the other. I did not even visit Northern Ireland until I was living in London and had to go to Belfast on business. I am not sure what I expected, but I was completely bowled over by  how absolutely beautiful it was and the amazing people who live there. Today, 35,000 people cross the border every day for work, leisure, education and pleasure. No borders should be erected that will undo this progress.
The purpose of the amendment is to put into concrete legal terms what the Prime Minister and her Government are already committed to. The joint report on phase one of the Brexit negotiations that was published last December included a commitment to no physical border on the island of Ireland as a result of the Brexit vote, and the Prime Minister repeated that promise earlier this month. That commitment is clear and unambiguous, but how is it to be achieved?
The Prime Minister referred in her Mansion House speech to the Smart Border 2.0 report. It is not an EU report, as some have said, but was commissioned by one of the EU committees and has been submitted to the European Parliament for consideration. The report examines how technology could be used to avoid a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. It uses examples of “smart” borders currently operating between Norway and Sweden and the US and Canada to demonstrate how technology can significantly speed up border controls. However, it makes clear that, despite all this technology, there are still 14 manned customs posts between Norway and Sweden and 39 between the US and Canada. In the US, so-called trusted traders—those who have preregistered with the Government—wait an average of 15 minutes to cross the border, while those who have not preregistered wait an average of 81 minutes. So the report demonstrates that, despite technology, even “smart” borders require manned border points, barriers and electronic surveillance including CCTV and number-plate recognition systems. This is very different from the current border between the north and the south and contradicts the Prime Minister’s statement on 2 March:
“We have ruled out any physical infrastructure at the border, or any related checks and controls”.
The report makes no mention at all of agriculture, including the issues of animal welfare and checks to ensure that shipments are free from harmful pests and plant diseases, but that is a key element of cross-border trade, with food and live animals accounting for one-third of Northern Irish exports to the Republic in 2016. In addition, intra-company supply chains are highly dependent on cross-border movement; lamb and wheat are just two examples. These checks need to be made at borders and will be mandatory if the north diverges on regulation. Saying there is a technological solution is just a fanciful claim that is not backed up in reality either in Europe or around the world. Casually adopting the word “technology” as an easy solution does not address how to deal with the many crossing points between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. It is clear, particularly in the report, that technology cannot make a hard border soft and that regulatory alignment is the key to solving the problem.
It is essential that the Government honour their commitments because the inevitable result of border controls will be more smuggling, and we know from bitter experience that that is how the men of violence  get back into business. The peace that was so hard-won in the Anglo-Irish agreement remains extremely fragile. It would be tragic if we were to tiptoe back into that quagmire because the Government found that they could not, after all, honour their promise. I very much hope that noble Lords will support this amendment on Report.

Lord Browne of Ladyton: My Lords, I will be speaking in particular to Amendment 215 in this group, which is in my name. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Wheatcroft, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, who have added their names to it.
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Hain for the way in which he introduced this group. He and the other speakers so far have set the scene in factual terms regarding the importance of the Good Friday agreement for the nature of the integration of the island of Ireland and the codependence that is significant for its economy, not just at the border but throughout the island, and the level of disturbance that they are anticipating as a result of Brexit and the level of commitment that the Government have to dealing with these issues, in anticipation and in reality, should Brexit occur. I support and adopt all the arguments that are before your Lordships. Noble Lords will be pleased to learn that I do not intend to repeat any of them, although towards the end of my remarks I intend to draw on the experiences of some young people in Northern Ireland that have been reported to me and others here, and which I think teach us a valuable lesson about the importance of the issues that are before the House.
I want to make a small personal contribution about my experience of Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs trying to do a relatively simple thing in a digital environment in relation to customs—in particular, VAT. Some noble Lords may have experience of this process. It is known as the transfer of residence. For the past three years, I have been living and working in the USA. When my wife and I returned to the UK, we had acquired some things that needed to be shipped back to the UK. This process requires what is known as a transfer of residence form, simply for VAT purposes. For many years—up until last year, in fact—this was done by a simple piece of paper that was completed by the person returning to set out what was coming back, when it was purchased and what value it had. If the form satisfied Her Majesty’s Customs that no VAT was chargeable, permission was given to the carrier to bring this particular sealed box into the country without charging any customs on it, and it therefore avoided being held up at the port.
In 2016, the Government decided to digitalise this process. It was a disaster. The process had to be put off time and again, simply because Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs could not translate the simple two-page form into a digitalised form on the web that reflected the actual experience that people had in the process. The reason why it impacted on me was that it was just at the point at which we were returning to the UK, after I had committed our modest goods to a carrier to transfer them across the Atlantic Ocean, that the system kicked in. I was faced with the situation that  HMRC was so overwhelmed by its inability to cope with this simple online system of a form that had to be completed, printed out and then sent to it by email that I was facing the prospect of these goods, which were not very valuable at all, being put into storage at my expense at such a rate that the storage would have been more expensive than the actual goods themselves. I was in the unfortunate position that I could not even ask the carrier to destroy them because, in order to do so, I had to bring them into the country, and to bring them into the country you needed to be able to calculate whether VAT was chargeable on them.
I admit—I probably should not—that I asked the carrier for the addresses of all the HMRC officers that had been dealt with on any of these issues by him or by the association that he was a member of. I sent one email to all these people saying, “When is a decision going to be made about my application?”. Twenty-four hours later, I sent another one saying, “When am I going to get an answer to my email, or even an acknowledgment of it? If I do not get an answer, the next email is going to the Minister who has responsibility for HMRC and will also be copied to all of you”. Needless to say, within a matter of an hour I got the information that I needed and the authority to bring my goods into the country.
We are told that the system is now working, but it does not work on a digitalised basis; it works simply on the basis of a form which is filled in, printed and sent to them. In any event, my own experience confirms that it is highly improbable that, between now and a date in March next year, we will see anything approximating to an electronic border between us and the European Union—on any part of our border with the European Union, never mind the complexity of what is happening in Ireland.
Amendment 215 would give legal effect to paragraphs 49 and 50 of the December 2017 UK-EU joint report on regulatory alignment and the responsibility of the UK to propose,
“solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland”.
On Monday 5 March, in her parliamentary Statement, the Prime Minister Theresa May, in the very first sentence of her Statement, said:
“In December we agreed the key elements of our departure from the EU, and we are turning that agreement into draft legal text ... no one should doubt our commitment to the entirety of the joint report”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/3/18; col. 25.]
That was just last week.
In respect of paragraphs 49 and 50, the Government are presently doing exactly what my noble friend Lord Rooker, in the debate on Amendment 144 earlier today, suggested should have been done some time ago, which was to translate the joint report—or at least the United Kingdom’s commitments—into legal text, and not have left that for the EU to do. That process is going on, and maybe the Minister will indicate exactly where we are with the process of drafting a legal text. If, by any chance, we could get to the point where it could be adopted into the Bill on Report, he and I could probably have an interesting conversation. In seeking to give effect to these paragraphs,  in a sense your Lordships’ House would be taking the Prime Minister at her word. We would not be doubting her commitment to the,
“entirety of the joint report”,
and seeking to translate the UK’s commitment into a legal text.
I commend the whole part of the report under the heading “Ireland and Northern Ireland”, which begins at paragraph 42. In the earlier paragraphs before 49 and 50, which I shall come to in detail in a moment, the agreement sets out that both the EU and UK agree that the Good Friday agreement,
“must be protected in all its parts”,
including,
“the practical application of the 1998 Agreement on the island”.
Our amendment seeks to test the commitment to paragraphs 49 and 50, which, with the leave of the House, I shall read. I do so for two reasons: the terms meet the case much better than I could on why we should legislate for this commitment; and because I sense a reluctance on the Government’s part to read these paragraphs in full. People are cherry-picking these paragraphs at this stage, but they need to be read in full to get the full extent of the commitment made by the Government.
Paragraph 49 states:
“The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom’s intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement”.
Paragraph 50 reads:
“In the absence of agreed solutions, as set out in the previous paragraph, the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland. In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market”.
The Prime Minister was right to use the word “commitment” when referring to this document, particularly so with reference to these two paragraphs.
Paragraph 46 states—and this is important:
“The commitments and principles outlined in this joint report ... are made and must be upheld in all circumstances, irrespective of the nature of any future agreement between the European Union and United Kingdom”.
The text says, “irrespective”, so it meets the test that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, repeatedly tells us the Bill meets; they are agnostic about negotiation. The test is that, irrespective of what happens between the European Union and the United Kingdom, the Government have committed themselves to these paragraphs in the report. They are solemn commitments to the people of Northern Ireland and the island of  Ireland. Certainly for the majority of people who live on that island—not just those who live in the border area, which will be most affected—these solemn commitments are being treated as commitments which the Government will maintain and live up to.
On Tuesday 6 March, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and I—like other noble Lords had done before—met a delegation of young people from Northern Ireland and from the Republic of Ireland who, with the support of the Irish Ombudsman for Children and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young people visited Parliament to convey to us the key messages from a conference of around 120 young people that took place in Newry in November last year. The conference was convened to offer young people from across the island of Ireland the opportunity to articulate their experiences of living near or on this border and to voice their views, hopes and fears. As a consequence of my exposure to these impressive young people, I shall restrict my contribution of experiences or challenges to what they said. I have the executive summary of their discussions and key messages, which reflect their experiences, hopes and fears. There is a longer version of this, which reports the conference more fully, but I do not intend to read either in any detail.
These young people want us to know their key messages, and I shall repeat some of them. Key message 3 states:
“We have come too far from the violence and divisions of the past. We don’t want to see regression to a hard border and conflict”.
A hard border means conflict in their minds. Key message 4 states:
“Protect all aspects of the Good Friday Agreement throughout the Brexit process and protect the right of young people in Northern Ireland to consider ourselves British, Irish or both”.
The second part of key message 6 states:
“Protect our freedom of movement across the border”.
Key message 7 states:
“We are very concerned that Brexit could limit our opportunities in the future for work, travel and study. Protect these opportunities and support us to avail of potential new opportunities”.
Key message 9 states:
“Allow children, young people and their families to continue to access services and facilities on either side of border, for example in relation to health, education, sports and cultural activities. The UK government should also commit to continuing membership of the EEA to ensure retention of the EHIC card”.
These are all reflections of their actual experiences. They tell us that 2,000 of them travel one way or another across the border just for their school education, every day. For these young people, we cannot live up to the objective of this Bill to ensure that the same laws will apply to persons in the UK the day after exit as before, unless there is a settlement covering the whole of the United Kingdom that commits us either to continued membership of the customs union or to something similar to a customs union and to regulatory alignment. There is one way of doing that, and that is to accept as a statutory obligation the obligations set out in these two paragraphs.

Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Paragraph 4.36 of the Companion suggests that:
“In debates where there are no formal time limits, members opening or winding up, from either side, are expected to keep within 20 minutes. Other speakers are expected to keep within 15 minutes”.
The noble Lord has spoken for 18 minutes. I wonder whether he would consider the tolerance of the House and wind up his speech.

Lord Browne of Ladyton: I am grateful to the noble Countess. As it happens, I had a one-sentence paragraph left at the point at which I took her intervention. I just say that these young people deserve a few minutes of our time, because it is their future and their life that we are discussing.
I wind up by saying that these young people reported to us that, the day before we met them, they had met with Shailesh Vara, Member of Parliament and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. They conveyed these same messages to him and asked how he was going to deal with the challenges of the border. They reported to us that they were told that there was, “going to be some creative thinking”. I invite the Minister to share that creative thinking with us, so that we can tell them how they can look forward to a future that is as rosy as the one they thought they had.

Lord Eames: My Lords, a year ago, I ventured to suggest to the House that, as the programme for the negotiation of our withdrawal from the European Union gathered momentum, the people of Northern Ireland would slowly but surely realise that they would be at the most vulnerable limits of what we were talking about in this House and in the other place. Tonight, I suggest to noble Lords that my prediction was true. That is the reason why I welcome much of the substance of what the noble Lord, Lord Hain, has said to us in support of his amendment. He and I would have a slightly different emphasis on parts of it, but the basis of what he said is, I believe, of vital importance at this stage of our negotiation.
I speak about this amendment not from a party-political stance, but from more than 22 years as the Anglican Primate, not of Northern Ireland, but of all Ireland. In that time, I was able to see, day to day and night to night, some of the consequences of the turmoil that had divided Ireland and divided the communities of Northern Ireland. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, other Members of your Lordships’ House who have served as Secretaries of State and those who have sacrificed a great deal as politicians in the cause of a lasting peace in Northern Ireland will know, we do not choose our words idly at this stage. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, referred to the young people. Those young people are but part of the segment of a community that is listening to what we are saying and, most importantly—I say this to the Government—listening to what will be the ultimate outcome of the negotiations for our withdrawal.
Beyond the technicalities of any discussions in your Lordships’ House over what will happen to the border and the island of Ireland, there is an emphasis tonight that, from living in Northern Ireland itself, I am  conscious of: the growing important feature of public opinion. First, there is dismay at the continuing absence of local government in the devolved Administration. This has been debated long and hard, and there are many theories about the way forward, but it is a fact. Allied to that is the frustration among all age groups about the fact that there is no local voice to represent the people—young and old—of Northern Ireland as we reach this critical stage of the EU withdrawal process. So it is incumbent on those of us who know the day-to-day conditions to say something about it in your Lordships’ House.
The element that I want to emphasise is the human one. What we decide ultimately in the negotiations for our withdrawal will depend locally, to a large extent, on the sensitivity to what the ordinary people on the streets of Northern Ireland believe, want and are concerned about. I put the concern to which I referred as clearly as I can: we have received assurance after assurance, verbal and written, that there will be sensitivity to the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom—with all the changes and challenges from a Northern Ireland perspective that have already been mentioned tonight—but the fear is that, in the high-powered negotiations to draw up the final agreement, it will be very easy for certain details to be watered down, or for us not to receive the concrete assurance that is given continually to our Province and the people of Northern Ireland, simply because negotiation means compromise and means setting what the important priorities are that ought to be met and underlined to get that agreement.
The awful fear of so many people is that the assurances given, and mentioned again in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, will be part of the casualty to that process. That is why I welcome the attention that he and his colleagues have drawn tonight to these important assurances. I use the opportunity to urge Her Majesty’s Government to remember that those assurances are not just a party-political issue. They are an issue to the people who have come through the darkness of the Troubles, who have sought the light of a partial peace, yet who live with the traditional divisions between orange and green and between those who see membership of the UK as vital and those who seek constantly to look further afield.
Finally, my mind goes back not to the Belfast agreement or anything else of that nature, but way back to the Downing Street declaration, which started the whole process, in my opinion. We had to look very carefully, under the guidance of John Major and, on the other side of the Irish Sea, Albert Reynolds, at the element of consent. That element has to be protected if we want a lasting peace in a divided community, and it is that which I believe gives me the—dare I say—moral authority to remind the House of the non-party-political aspects of this amendment, and the fact that we are dealing with ordinary people who have hopes and fears, and who deserve the fullest possible attention.

Baroness Suttie: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to listen to the wisdom and experience of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames. He helps put all this back into perspective for us. I shall speak  to Amendments 215, 198 and 187A, to which I have added my name. All three tackle the issue of avoiding a hard border and of upholding the progress made in the last 20 years since the Good Friday Belfast agreement.
Whereas there is virtually universal consensus about those aims, as the debate this evening has shown, there is still scarily little consensus about how they can be achieved in reality, especially given the timescale we are now talking about. Various options are being floated for the Irish border issue, but every one of them is considered utterly unacceptable to at least one section of society on the island of Ireland. This has all been further complicated by the confidence and supply arrangement that the Government have found themselves in since last summer, and the hard-line position on Brexit taken by the DUP.
In the absence of a credible policy from the Government and the current policy vacuum, various myths and assumptions have started to take hold. The first and most popular myth is, as my noble friend Lady Doocey has so clearly spelled out, that this problem can somehow magically be solved through “technological solutions”. The proponents of this myth have somewhat ironically given enormous credence to a paper written by one researcher for the Constitutional Affairs Committee in the European Parliament. As my noble friend said, and as the disclaimer in the document makes clear, that paper has no official status. People have perhaps been so keen to promote it because it is more than the Government themselves have been able to produce.
But even if such technological solutions were indeed feasible, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said, it is highly unlikely that they could be fully implemented within the next decade, never mind by next March. We just need to look at the track record across Whitehall to know how long it takes to introduce new technological systems, and how often there are severe technical and teething problems. On giving evidence to our EU Committee, a senior Swiss customs official acknowledged that on the 120 border crossings between Switzerland and the EU, even with technology some hardware has to be installed, with CCTV cameras, number plate recognition, drone technology and so on. Any such hardware could be very vulnerable to vandalism, so people on the ground would be required to protect it. It is not hard to see how this could quickly be ratcheted up to become a physical border. The chief constable of the PSNI, George Hamilton, has expressed publicly his concerns and warned that border posts and security installations created as a result of a hard Brexit would be seen as fair game for attack by violent dissident republicans.
The second dangerous assumption is that because the Irish have the most to lose economically as a result of Brexit, they will have to sort out the problem and fix it in Brussels. There are even those who say that the inevitable consequence is that Ireland too will have to leave the European Union. But Ireland is a sovereign state and the Irish people overwhelmingly continue to support membership of the European Union. This is particularly true among young people. They did not have a say in the Brexit referendum in 2016, so it is deeply unreasonable to say that it is now down to them to sort it all out.
The third key area of debate is that somehow or other the issue of the border has been exaggerated; some have even used the word “weaponised”. However, just two days before the EU referendum the Prime Minister, Theresa May, said:
“if we were out of the European Union with tariffs on exporting goods into the EU, there would have to be something to recognise that between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. And if you pulled out of the EU and came out of free movement, then how could you have a situation where there was an open border with a country that was in the EU and had access to free movement?”
On this I agree with the Prime Minister.
During an EU Select Committee visit to Ireland and Northern Ireland in January, we heard many people voicing concern about the differences in interpretation in London and in Dublin on the joint agreement reached between the EU and the UK on 8 December. In Dublin there is understandably a firm belief that it was an agreement that was to be honoured by both sides.
The purpose of Amendment 215 is to give effect to paragraphs 49 and 50 of the joint report agreed on 8 December. Paragraph 49 of the joint agreement envisages three different scenarios for finding a solution to the Irish border issue. The second scenario envisages,
“specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland”.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, has already read out the details of paragraph 49, so I ask the Minister when the Government intend to come forward with these specific solutions, and why they have not yet come forward with proposals. I am sure the Minister will agree that this is becoming increasingly urgent, given the imminent European Council where these issues will be examined on 23 March.
I shall conclude by saying a few words about some of the unseen consequences of leaving the European Union, and the impact on the Good Friday Belfast agreement. Since we both joined the European Economic Community in 1973, Irish and UK Ministers have had the opportunity to sit around the table in Brussels on a monthly basis. They have sat around that table as equals. These meetings have provided an unseen but vital opportunity to discuss the issues of the day and to work around problems. This has provided a vital information flow which has had a not inconsiderable influence on the peace process. In his concluding remarks, can the Minister say what thought the Government have given to enhancing UK-Ireland relations in the absence of these hugely valuable diplomatic channels? On this, as with so many other issues surrounding Brexit, the full consequences are not yet fully understood, but we must do all we can to avoid any reversal of the hard-won peace and progress achieved over the last 20 years.

Lord Murphy of Torfaen: My Lords, I support the amendment so eloquently spoken to by my noble friend Lord Hain. I remind the House that we are three weeks away from the 20th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement. Those two decades ago it was my privilege, as the political development Minister at the time, to chair a good part of those negotiations—but in 1997 I had been appointed by the Prime Minister to be the European Minister as well. There is a link between the two, which is why I wanted to speak to this amendment.
The committee of your Lordships’ House that looked at this matter some months ago concluded that common European Union membership had laid the groundwork for the development of the peace process. Indeed, the preamble to the Good Friday agreement says that the two Governments wished,
“to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union”.
There can be no doubt that throughout the whole of that agreement the three strands—strand 1, which dealt with the internal arrangements within Northern Ireland; strand 2, which dealt with the relations between the north and the south of the island of Ireland; and strand 3, which dealt with east-west relations between the two countries of Ireland and the United Kingdom—and all the other elements of the Good Friday agreement were underpinned by that common membership of the European Union.
In strand 1, much of the success of the last 20 years has been based upon the European funding in Northern Ireland, not least of which was the actual peace money itself, which helped to produce peace, stability and prosperity in Northern Ireland. In strand 2, where these bodies north and south come together, much of what they did relied upon the common membership of the European Union, again with regard to funding but other issues as well. Strand 3 set up the British-Irish Council and the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, both of which deal with matters affecting the European Union. In the paragraphs cited by my noble friend Lord Browne a few minutes ago, the Government themselves accept that the Good Friday agreement must be kept intact when Brexit occurs.
Another issue, perhaps not so legal but very important, is the fact that in my view the agreement would not have been successful if the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom had not entered the European Union together in 1973. That meant that time after time, day after day, even hour after hour, in Brussels and elsewhere, the two Governments could talk at ministerial and official level. That talking meant that the old bad relations between the two countries faded away, as, of course, did the border itself. The blurring of the border as a result of the events of the last 20 years has been hugely significant in not just economic and security terms but in psychological terms, because that border has gone in the minds of both nationalists and unionists. Its resurrection would be an absolute disaster. Whatever one’s views on Brexit, the idea of returning to what had been there before would be extremely backward looking.
The other issue to which my noble friend referred was that the Good Friday agreement is an international treaty. The two Governments of Britain and the Republic of Ireland are joint guarantors of the Good Friday agreement. The responsibility rests upon our shoulders to ensure that all the aspects of that agreement, which are as fresh today in my mind as they were 20 years ago, are guaranteed by the two Governments.
Senator George Mitchell, who will come over to Northern Ireland in a couple of weeks’ time to commemorate the Good Friday agreement, said a couple of days ago that there were 700 days of failure  and one day of success in the talks which led to the Good Friday agreement. If we do not ensure that we deal with the border and respect all the aspects of the Good Friday agreement, we cannot allow the Brexit negotiations to put at risk the great worth and good that has come to Northern Ireland and, indeed, to Ireland and the United Kingdom, as a consequence of what we did two decades ago.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett: My Lords, I cannot claim the knowledge of Northern Ireland of many other noble Lords who have spoken. However, I wanted to contribute to this debate and have added my name to Amendment 218 because 25 years ago I was privileged to be a member of the Opsahl commission, an independent commission or citizens’ inquiry into the future of Northern Ireland. I have also been very much influenced by the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition; it practises what I called in my academic work the politics of solidarity in difference, and had an influence on the wording of the Good Friday agreement which I do not think is always sufficiently recognised.
Earlier in Committee, I repeated a question that I asked at Second Reading: how is the requirement in the Good Friday agreement for an equivalent level of human rights protection in Northern Ireland and the Republic to be maintained if the citizens of the former could no longer look to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights? I noted that in his helpful letter to Peers, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, pointed out that the agreement preceded the charter and, as the charter is not referenced in the agreement, the Bill should not affect our obligations to it. However, the point is about equivalence. If the charter now applies in the Republic and not in Northern Ireland, with the loss of various rights in the latter, how, I asked again, will that equivalence be maintained? But answer came there none, so I would very much appreciate it if the Minister could give an answer to that today, especially as, since then, I have read of the concerns of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission on this score, and that of a number of human rights organisations and academics in a recent letter to the Irish Times. That letter argued that we need greater clarity on how the restated commitment in the European Commission’s draft protocol to no diminution of rights in Northern Ireland will be achieved in the absence of the charter. Can the Minister explain that?
By the same token, while the,
“total, steadfast commitment to the Belfast agreement”—[Official Report, 12/3/18; col. 1414.]
given by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, on Monday, was very welcome, it is difficult to see how that agreement will not be undermined if the charter is removed and nothing is put in its place. As a briefing by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission underlines, equality and rights provisions are central to the agreement. It is no wonder that people in Northern Ireland are not worried about its future. A number of organisations, including the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, are now arguing, in the light of these risks to the human rights framework,  that this is a key moment to renew discussions on a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. Will the Minister undertake to consider that?
Like my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton, I am particularly concerned about the implications of withdrawal for children and young people in Northern Ireland, which I mentioned briefly when we debated the protection of children and their rights at an earlier stage in Committee. The Children’s Law Centre in Belfast—this links in with what the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said—consulted children and young people and found that they were angry and frustrated that they had no influence on a decision which has particular implications for them in terms of their childhood and their future. The report of the conference to which my noble friend referred, which was organised by children and young people themselves, details their concerns. Has the Minister read that report? If not, will he undertake to do so?
Some of us attended a recent meeting with some of the children and young people held in your Lordships’ House. Talking to them really brought home to me what a hard border means in terms of everyday life. It is about not just goods and lorries but about how everyday lives are lived across the border. For example, what happens when separated parents live either side of the border? What happens when your school is the other side of the border? When this question was put at the conference to the Secretary-General of the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, he responded, “I can confidently say I don’t know, one of many areas that we don’t know yet and have to work out”. That was not very reassuring. What happens if you need specialist health treatment on the other side of the border, or if the nearest emergency health treatment is the other side? These are the kinds of concerns the young people raised with us and they point to a real threat to their social right of access to services and to their right to family life.
The Government have not yet managed to convince anyone that they have a realistic answer to the problem of the border between Northern Ireland outside the EU and the Republic inside it. Talking to these children brought home to me the damage this could inflict on their rights and well-being. This amendment would address some of those concerns. What reassurances can the Minister give to these children, because they are listening?

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, to which I have added my name. I do not need to say very much in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, because he introduced it so clearly and fully, except to say that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey: I cannot see any reason why the Government cannot accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, tonight. It seems to me that it sets out very clearly the commitments made by the UK Government, which we all agree are very important. In its second paragraph, it provides for the possibility that there might be something in the magic solutions to the border. If there were, that would be taken into account in the wording of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I therefore hope that the Government will accept it.
Turning to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, my only point is that the extraordinary linguistic fudge in December is very hard for the lawyers to construe. It has been construed by the Commission lawyers in the 118-page draft withdrawal treaty, which was published on 28 February. It has been construed as requiring “a common regulatory area” in Northern Ireland and including Northern Ireland in the EU’s customs territory. Many in London have denounced these solutions; many in London and some in Northern Ireland find them unacceptable. However, they have at least tried; they have produced a draft treaty with draft clauses explaining how they think that fudge could be construed and turned into treaty language. We have not done so: all we have done is make another speech, including the same two suggestions that were made last summer, one of which the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU immediately dismissed the day after as blue-skies thinking. We still seem to be at the stage of blue-skies thinking, but next week in the European Council, we will be confronted by a draft treaty that provides a solution acceptable to some in this country but not acceptable, perhaps, to all in this country. It is half way there. I really worry that if we stick to speeches and do not produce drafts, it is very hard to see how this negotiation will reach a conclusion.
I very much support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and it is in the spirit of that amendment that the Government should be thinking very hard of producing the legal language that they want, and then a real negotiation could start in Brussels. Personally, I do not think that it is possible to find the legal language that matches the Mansion House speech. I believe that the only solution that is likely to be acceptable to all parties in Ireland and in this country is continuing membership of a customs union for the United Kingdom as a whole, which is, of course, what the CBI, the TUC and manufacturing industry want, and we all want for other reasons as well. We do not all want it, but on my side, we do all want it. I think that that is where it will end up. But if the Government think there is another way to go, they really need to produce the language and put it on the table in Brussels quickly.

Lord Liddle: Is there not a more sinister potential interpretation of the Government’s behaviour—that they have looked into the customs partnership paper that they published in August and decided that nothing can really be made to work out of it? Therefore, their hope at the moment is that the EU 26 will force Ireland to accept some form of hard border because it is in the trade interests of the EU 26 to make sure that there is a smooth exit for Britain. Is this not an extremely dangerous situation for us in the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland, in which we might end up in a situation where the EU 26 agrees to some form of hard border that then leads ultimately to a further outbreak of the Troubles?

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: I would not want to attribute sinister motives to the Government—I think that somebody managed to get the word “cock-up” into Hansard the other night. Conspiracies are very rare. It is possible—and there are some who believe—that the 26 will lean on Dublin; that is perfectly possible. It  is unlikely, and it is of course the case that the European Council decides by unanimity, so if one were looking for a settlement in the European Council which meant that the 26 leaned on Mr Varadkar, Mr Varadkar would have his vote and could say that he did not agree. However, I have seen no signs of the 26 leaning on the Irish. It looks to me from what Mr Tusk said when he went to Dublin the other day that we are heading for another European Council where the Irish position on the hard border and our position on the hard border are recognised by everybody. Nobody wants a hard border.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, surely when he speculates on these matters, the Foreign Secretary himself has publicly contemplated the prospect of a hard border, and his minute to the Prime Minister has been published.

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: Certainly, I was unwilling to impute evil motives to the Government, but I am even more unwilling to try to interpret the tergiversations of the Foreign Secretary.

Lord Patten of Barnes: My Lords, I was very moved by the speech of the noble and right reverend Lord, the former Primate of All Ireland. I hope I can say without causing too much offence that I wish all the leaders of Christian denominations in Northern Ireland and Ireland as a whole had behaved over the years with his generosity of spirit. In saying that, I include the members of the Church of which I am a member. In his remarks, he reminded us of the terrible collateral damage we can do to things that really matter if we simply blunder forward, motivated in some cases by dogma in what is, after all, very largely a faith-based project. I am sorry to use that expression after referring to the noble and right reverend Lord, but that is what it amounts to.
I do not want to go through all of the arguments that have been so persuasively used or all the evidence that has been stacked up. I spoke about this issue briefly at Second Reading because I feel passionately about it. As an addendum to the Good Friday agreement, I chaired the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland. The report was denounced at the time by some Members of this House and by some present members of the Government. I remember one calling that policing report “a moral stain”, but it has stood the test of time. I am delighted that we have not had the same number of police officers killed in the last 20 years that we had in the preceding 25 or 30 years, when 300 died. I therefore feel very strongly about this and I entirely endorse what the noble Lord said earlier about the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union in taking these things forward.
I remember when I was a junior Minister in Northern Ireland—a destination, according to the Prime Minister’s friends, that she regarded as a Siberian power station. I remember how important it was to meet Ministers from the Republic in Brussels. Very often, they were meeting representatives of Northern Ireland or the Northern Ireland Government for the first time in serious official discussions, so all of that matters. I want to point out the dangers involved when you wrap up together the border.
There is a wonderful book about the border by Colm Tóibín, called Bad Blood. That is not the sort of place for which you can provide easy technological solutions. We have heard a lot about that Smart Border report, which was a consultant’s report to the European Parliament. I thought I had to take it seriously, because I heard it advocated on the “Today” programme by one of the self-titled “Brains for Brexit”, who gave a whole interview about the importance and the value of this report. So I read it, and the first thing he says is that he does not know very much about Northern Ireland. You can say that again. He goes on to point out that the report does not cover agrifood or things such as phytosanitary standards, and says that while he talks about how you can speed up customs arrangements, he does not remotely suggest that you can do without a border or customs arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
We can go through all those arguments about whether it is possible to do without a hard border. As was pointed out earlier, the Prime Minister—before the Brexit referendum—made her position absolutely clear as the then Home Secretary. At the same time, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that it was scaremongering to suggest that we would need a hard border. I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor, said that we would need a hard border, and she had to correct him. It was a brave thing to correct the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, about anything, but she did so. But in fact, he was right, because you do have to have a hard border. Borders are not just about geography or the identity that people want. They are about different regulations and rules.
When Pascal Lamy said recently—but no, this is dangerous. He knows what he is talking about, and on top of that, he is French and knows what he is talking about, so we clearly should not take any notice of what he says. He said the other day that he could not think of any example, anywhere in the world, of a virtual border where there were different customs arrangements. You cannot. People have talked about the United States-Canada border. President Trump will be very interested to hear that there is no hard border between Canada and the United States. We have talked about Sweden and Norway. I noted that when the Swedish Trade Minister was here the other day and was asked about this, she said, “It’s as easy for Swedes to export to Norway as it is to land a man on the moon”. So that does not seem a good example to make the case that there is an easy answer to the question the Prime Minister addressed in the negotiations that led up to the December agreement—or rather the consensus, as we have to call it now, or the December proposal. She said then that we were absolutely against a hard agreement or border controls.
We have to ask these legitimate questions, because we are talking about a difficult border, the economic relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union. How we resolve those issues, and without doing damage as well to the Good Friday agreement, is an unresolved puzzle—one of the consequences of this faith-based project.
Some people have said that we should not bother too much—the Good Friday agreement is not really a problem, and it has been made up by the Irish and the Europeans to try to put pressure on us. That is not the position taken by Tony Blair, Sir John Major, Bertie Ahern or Senator George Mitchell. They all think that there is a problem in maintaining the Good Friday agreement because of what has been happening. One has to take that seriously. If it was not a problem, why did the British Government make so much of it in the agreement—the consensus—with the European Commission in December? There is paragraph after paragraph about the paramount importance of the Good Friday agreement and not damaging it in anyway. If this is just a notional agreement, for the birds, why did British negotiators spend so much time arguing and talking about it, and committing themselves to doing everything in their power to defend it?
It is also important to remember that the Good Friday agreement and the border are not just about customs controls and surveillance cameras. This is also a question of identity. At the heart of the Good Friday agreement was a difficult but fairly straightforward deal. In return for the republican nationalist community saying that they would not argue for any change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, except through democracy and the ballot box, they were told in return that they could demonstrate their identity—British, Irish, European—as they wished. They could be both British and Irish. I cannot think of many things that go to the heart of identity more strongly than borders. The border is absolutely fundamental to what the Good Friday agreement was all about.
There is one further point that some noble Lords made which has made me less generous-spirited than the noble and right reverend Primate would want me to be. That is the suggestion that this is all made up by the Republic. It is not an issue for Northern Ireland or us but a problem for the Republic. Is it not an issue for us? Are we going to break our word in a treaty we signed, or turn back on what we promised in December? If we break our word like that, who in future will be prepared to have any sort of agreement with us? Is it not an issue for us? Let us be honest—it is not something I am particularly proud about—the Government are propped up by the DUP, with a very expensive crutch. To keep things moving, we even have to cover up—this comes back to something we were discussing with my noble friend Lord Young at the Dispatch Box: political funding—where the DUP gets its money from to ensure that this crutch does not collapse from underneath us. So do not let anybody tell me that this is not a profound issue in British politics as well as an important issue because of the collateral damage that will be done to the Republic of Ireland as well as Northern Ireland if we get this wrong.
There is a danger here of our behaving in a reckless and shameful way. It is easy for people from this side of the water to go over to Northern Ireland and give their little lectures about generosity of spirit, healing and hope. I remember how, after a meeting in Northern Ireland, when I had made a pretty speech along these lines, a woman said, “It’s all very well for you. You go back afterwards. We have to live with the consequences of what goes wrong”. In this House, with so many  former Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, and so many others who have dedicated a good part of their lives to Northern Ireland, we should think about our responsibility for trying to ensure that this extraordinarily rickety construction we have put together, which has kept the peace in Northern Ireland for some time, is not blown apart. There is a danger of that happening unless we show statesmanship and have the courage to stand up for things that should matter to us more than I sometimes think is suggested.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, the difficulty with contributing late to a debate is that all the effective arguments have been deployed, so I shall be brief.
I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Patten, just said. I remember meeting him when I was serving as a Minister there, when he was doing his magnificent job on the future of policing. I support very much what my noble friends Lord Hain, Lord Browne and Lord Murphy said in deploying the arguments.
Just after the Brexit vote took place, I said to an intelligent and thoughtful businesswoman, “You know, there’s a real problem here. We’ve got an insoluble difficulty, which is Northern Ireland”, and I explained why. She said, “But nobody ever told us”. That may just be one person, but it is my feeling listening to the debate that none of those who were pro-Brexit have given this a thought—I have no sense that they have. I have argued with people about this. I was at a dinner and was sitting one seat away from an individual—I will not name him—who leads a very important Conservative-supporting think tank. I said to him, “You lead a think tank; you may have some ideas. What are you going to do about Northern Ireland?” He said, “Oh, it can be solved”. I said, “Give me a hint of how”. He replied, “It can be done”. “Well, how?” I asked. He said, “With will”. I said, “You haven’t got a clue, have you?”, and there was silence. I am afraid that is the position we are in. I would like to feel that the Government have some control over this but I have no sense that they have.
Somebody mentioned Senator George Mitchell. I was reflecting just the other day that I was at the opening of the Senator George Mitchell Peace Bridge, connecting the north and the south, and I thought, “There was a symbol of communication and unity, and of Ireland working as one economy”. Are we going to put all of that away and have some sort of border there?
I had for parliamentary reasons to go to Andorra last autumn. I had never been before, and there was a conference there. Andorra is not in the EU, and going in, all the heavy goods vehicles were lined up to be checked by customs, and there were border controls and so on. They let people go through—there were just spot checks on us—but there was the whole paraphernalia of a border. I thought to myself, “Are we going to have that in Northern Ireland at its 250 border crossings?” For heaven’s sake, I hope not.
Somebody said that technology is the answer. I know that has been mentioned before this evening, but if there was a technological solution that required no border controls, surely somewhere in the world, somebody would have already found it. There is not a single  example of that anywhere, so to the people who say, “It can be done by technology; we can be clever”, and so on, I say, “Give me a hint of where it is being done”. Because if it is so useful and effective, surely somebody, somewhere, would already have put it in—whether at the border between Sweden and Norway, Canada and the United States, or wherever. There is no sign of that, so I challenge the people who say that technology is the answer to give us a hint.
I feel quite strongly and emotionally about this because I, along with colleagues, was at Castle Buildings when the Good Friday agreement was finalised. It was such an achievement. We all felt so happy and that it was a real success, and that there would be peace and we were moving forward. Now, we are in danger of turning the clock back for no good reason.
My heart sinks when I hear the Government say, “We are against the customs union and we will have nothing to do with the single market”, because surely the only answer, as has been said before this evening, is to be a member of the customs union and to have membership of the single market or a close association with it. There is no other answer; otherwise, we will have a hard border.

Lord Empey: My Lords, naively, I thought we were discussing the relevance of the amendment to the Bill but I am afraid we have moved on to another Second Reading debate.
There a few specific items I want to mention about the amendment. I do not know how “hard border” is defined on the face of the Bill. There is disagreement as to what a hard or a soft border is, and they are not terms that I particularly identify with.
Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause says:
“Subsection (1)(c) applies unless Her Majesty’s Government, the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the EU agree alternative specific solutions”.
I believe that those three parties should sit down to agree specific solutions. But unfortunately last week the Irish Prime Minister rejected that suggestion. Ultimately, that is one avenue of discussion that should not be closed.
Having listened for an hour and three-quarters to this debate, I sincerely appeal to Members to moderate their language. If you link the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, and whatever border arrangements might exist on the island of Ireland as a result, with the return of violence, people will listen to that and pick it up as a justification. I appeal to Members to be very careful with what they say. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, talked about people getting in the boat and going home—but we have to stay there. We know how much damage language can do in this situation, and things are being linked that should not be.

Lord Patten of Barnes: I think the most explicit reference to the dangers of a hard border—of border crossings and customs officials being re-established—and the most serious warning about those has come from the chief constable of the Northern Ireland police service. He was very explicit on this subject, and I  think he was much more explicit about the dangers than anybody has been in this House. I do not want to question the importance of what the noble Lord is saying, but it is worth recalling that the most outspoken remarks have come from the chief constable.

Lord Empey: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that. I have to say that the chief constable was using as an example the erection of customs posts and things that used to exist in the 1950s and 1960s, as well as all sorts of other concrete establishments and so on which we are not going to have. In many respects, the United Kingdom Government have committed themselves not to produce that material at the border. Whether Brussels wants or would insist on the Irish Government doing so, no Irish Government I can conceive of would do anything of the sort. I just do not believe they would—it would be politically impossible for them to do it. Brussels may have its own objectives and determinations to protect the single market—we understand that—but when push comes to shove. I do not believe it is possible.

Lord Liddle: Surely it is we who have created this problem. It is not a Brussels problem—we in this country have decided to leave.

Lord Empey: I understand what the noble Lord is saying perfectly well. To put this into context, my party supported remain in the referendum, on a free vote. We cited two things: Scotland and the border. I have had this discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I am not a Europhile at all—I never have been, even though I spent eight years in Brussels on the Committee of the Regions, very minor body that it is. I have some sense of the EU. But a vote has taken place, and we accept the outworkings of that vote. We are trying to get on with it and to find a solution that works for all of us.
When we talk about “the” border we must remember that it is not confined to the island of Ireland. The primary bit of the border between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland is actually between Dublin and Holyhead, Rosslare and Fishguard—it is in Wales. That is where the vast majority of the problem lies, and where the bulk of the goods go in order to use Great Britain as a land bridge. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, mentioned that a very large percentage of goods that travel via Northern Ireland go to Great Britain. These are goods in transit.
Noble Lords need to appreciate what we are talking about in terms of scale. In this amendment we use the phrase, “all-island economy”. I was privileged to serve as Trade Minister and Energy Minister, and I was the Northern Ireland Minister who established InterTradeIreland, which is designed to promote trade. On taking office, I discovered that neither the United Kingdom nor the Irish Republic could agree on the amount of trade that they do, and that is still the case. In 2015, the Central Statistics Office in Dublin produced a report on goods exports classified by commodity, listing where the goods were going. Exports from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland accounted for 1.6% of the Irish Republic’s total exports. The CSO also produced a report setting out the percentage  of imports to the Irish Republic from Northern Ireland, including live animals and food products, and that was also 1.6%.
I had to deal with these matters for years. I set up a cross-border body and implemented the outworkings of the agreement. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and I are the only two Members still in the Chamber tonight who were involved in the agreement. He will know the heavy lifting that had to be done by the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, who is not in his seat, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and others to get the agreement approved. It was approved by 71.2% in a referendum in Northern Ireland. We are talking about a referendum of 52%, but we had a majority vote of 71.2%. It was a hard slog and he knows that.
I agreed with the earlier remark of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that the Government have not produced sufficient hardcore copy to match the proposals put forward by Brussels. He makes a fair point. Brussels has put forward 118 or so pages. I am not asking for that but I think that we have to have a counterproposal on paper. If that happens to involve technology, so be it. I have no difficulty with that and nor does the European Union. A report was recently published in Brussels by the EU’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, which comes under the Directorate-General for Internal Policies. It sets out what are thought to be feasible proposals involving technology and other things. We already have a currency border—Northern Ireland and the Republic have different currencies—and we have different taxes, so we are not dealing simply with a one-dimensional problem.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I have noticed that the discussions have concentrated on trade, and I understand the good reasons for that. However, the matter that I raised concerns the movement of people. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, is very knowledgeable about Northern Ireland and the south and so forth, so I would like to ask him how you deal with the fact that the Republic will remain part of the European Union and have free movement of people, whereas the north will not if we leave completely and are not part of the single market. How do you deal with that in the context of immigration policy? Technology cannot deal with this. Where will people’s documents be examined to see whether they have an entitlement to make the passage? Where will that happen?

Lord Empey: I was not responding to that part of the amendment but I am quite happy to give my opinion on it. I think that a number of measures can be achieved. First, the Republic is not in Schengen, and that is helpful. Clearly, there has to be co-operation between the relevant authorities, which there already is. Regarding immigration controls, cars are often stopped by the authorities on both sides. The guards recently arrested people who had entered the Republic from Northern Ireland whom they believed were illegal immigrants. Therefore, that works.
There is a series of measures that the United Kingdom and the Republic should take to create a disincentive. People have to have a reason for coming, and very often that reason is work. First, we should make it much more difficult to get national insurance numbers  and have a much better system for that. Secondly, employers should face greater penalties if they employ people who are not there legally, and that should be done on both sides of the border. Thirdly, we should have much more detailed intelligence sharing to create a disincentive throughout the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. That is something that I think we should do anyway, but it would certainly act as a disincentive.
However, if people are saying that we can put structures in place, the point is that we do not even have them today. Reference was made to smuggling. Smuggling is rife and has been for years. One has only to look at fuel smuggling—the paramilitaries have been making an absolute fortune out of it. As for the common travel area, citizens of both countries have the right to move freely between the two and that will continue. However, the noble Baroness mentioned people who would somehow be in the middle, saying that there would be a difference between EU citizens who have a right and EU citizens who do not. To get on to the island, they have to come through a port and the immigration system of the Republic of Ireland or they have to come through the United Kingdom. How many people are we talking about? I would have thought that creating disincentives for people to enter the jurisdiction illegally would be as good as anything rather than having to look at every individual who appears. I do not see that that will be a huge problem and, quite frankly, I do not think that it will affect many people.
Perhaps I may return to the amendment. We are obviously very grateful for the great support there has been for the Good Friday agreement, and it was painful to hear Members in the other place saying that the time had come to get rid of it. I have said to several people that I cannot think of a worse proposal. I cannot begin to think where we would start in trying to put things together again—I cannot even contemplate that. We have achieved something that generations failed to achieve. I make a point of repeating that and I regret the comments that have been made. However, the agreement that we are talking about and defending—the noble Lord, Lord Hain, knows my views on this—is not the agreement that we negotiated and it is not the agreement that was voted on in the referendum in 1998. It has been changed. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, did his best in 2006 to try to get things going again, and I understand why he did so, but there was a substantial change at the core of the agreement which in my opinion has led to the present impasse. However, that is for another day. Let us concentrate on the common ground, of which there is quite a lot here.
We want to solve this problem and I think that the Government have an obligation to be more precise. Quite frankly, the document of 8 December is contradictory—in my opinion, it does not really add up. People are saying that there will be the same regulations and that that will be the default position after Brexit but that, at the same time, there will be no difference in the regulations between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The only logical outworking of that is that you remain in the single market, but we are not going to do that and I do not think that it is what Brexit means.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, that being the logical argument, why is the noble Lord against it?

Lord Empey: First, I believe that you cannot leave the European Union and remain in the single market and the customs union. I am making the point that the December statement has a contradiction in it.

Lord Adonis: But does the noble Lord not also see that he does not have to take account of the Government’s position? He can express his own view freely in this House. Does he not think that remaining in the single market and the customs union would be best for Northern Ireland?

Lord Empey: No, I do not. Our big market is here; it is not in the Republic. The same applies to Scotland and everywhere else. The common market of the United Kingdom is more important to us economically than the European Union.

Lord Adonis: I am sorry to intervene again, but who knows? Britain might remain in the single market and the customs union too.

Lord Empey: It is an incompatibility. There is no point in replacing one incompatibility with another. I am simply saying that if you are in the customs union and the single market, you are in the European Union. If you are out of the European Union, you are not in the single market or the customs union. It is an inevitable consequence. We are arguing for two different things.
Let me point out the scale of the problem we face. The border is not confined to the land border; it is also between the Republic and Great Britain. That side of it is ignored because if you have separate arrangements between Dublin, Holyhead, Fishguard, Rosslare and so on, and you have separate arrangements for us, that is incompatible with the core element of the Good Friday agreement—the principle of consent.
Let us follow the concept in the amendment. In addition to the negotiations with the 27, I see no good reason why we should not have negotiations involving the European Union, ourselves and the Irish Republic, in parallel with or as part of the process. With the European Union as an integral part, in that way we could perhaps narrow down and explore some of the solutions, which I hope and pray exist. I will leave it at that and thank Members for listening to me.

Baroness Altmann: My Lords, I support Amendment 198, so excellently spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, to which I have added my name. I also support Amendments 215, 218 and 219. I commend the many excellent speeches made in this debate.
The Good Friday agreement was premised on a balanced approach to healing and rebuilding three sets of broken relationships. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, and my noble friend Lord Patten have outlined these three groups: first, the communities within Northern Ireland; secondly, the north-south relationship; and thirdly, east-west. These three groups of relationships are intertwined and the reality is that it is a whole. If you impact one part you affect the balance of the whole thing.
There is of course an economic dimension to this but it also has an important social dimension. We have signed an international agreement committed to repairing, rebuilding and protecting the people on the island of Ireland, and to co-operation among the communities, north and south. The open, frictionless border is a crucial part of this and it simply cannot be squared with leaving the single market and the customs union unless there is full regulatory alignment.
Protecting the Good Friday agreement should be the reddest of the Government’s red lines. The Good Friday agreement is essentially about co-operation and partnership. As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said, it has developed over time—it is not exactly the same—but that was always the aim of that agreement, and those developments need to be protected if our Government are to continue to honour our commitments and obligations to the people of Northern Ireland.
The common regulatory standards mean that business in goods and services can operate freely on the whole island. Six areas of co-operation are identified: education, agriculture, environment, health, transport and tourism. This covers pretty much everything. EU regulations govern north-south co-operation, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, mentioned the 142 areas of co-operation which would be impacted if there were not regulatory alignment or belonging still to the single market and the customs union. When summing up, can the Minister confirm to the Committee whether this is the final number of areas identified, and how many of those have the Government identified solutions for if we leave the single market and customs union and do not have full regulatory alignment?
This is an Achilles heel of Brexit. The Prime Minister has already committed to full regulatory alignment. We have heard that the opportunity to remain, for example, in the European Economic Area would solve the east-west issue as well as helping the north-south. As we have already committed, and the Prime Minister’s words reflected, that there should be no hard border, and to reassure the people of Northern Ireland and Ireland that we are a country which upholds its commitments to international agreements, I hope my noble friend will support the amendment or bring back an equivalent on Report.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. I hope it has been helpful for the Minister.
I made a comment at Second Reading that in preparing for Brexit we should look at the detail—that the fine print was too important to be left to those who had no doubt—and I expressed the hope that Ministers would recognise the expertise in your Lordships’ House. Indeed, Members in the other House said exactly the same.
At Second Reading, the response of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, expressed optimism in that regard. If ever there was a time to listen to the expertise in your Lordships’ House, it has been tonight in this debate. We have heard from a former Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, the noble Lord, Lord Patten, with his vast experience of Northern Ireland, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, who made a  powerful speech. We heard from my own colleagues, including my noble friends Lord Browne—he and I were Ministers together—and Lord Dubs. I feel somewhat nervous seeing my two former Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland sitting together, watching over me and looking at my back.
Noble Lords have raised pertinent issues tonight that go to the heart of what Brexit is about. The Northern Ireland Good Friday agreement was hard fought and hard won and no one in the House should doubt the importance of how well it has served us. We have had a long debate and issues have been raised tonight purely through people’s knowledge and their concern for what could happen if there is a hard border. I appreciate the points made by the Government about the protection of the Good Friday agreement. I welcome the Minister who is responding tonight to his place, but at Second Reading the response of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, did not refer once to Northern Ireland although the issue was raised several times. Clearly that was an error, a mistake, because there were a great deal of issues which had to be talked about. However, I am sure the Minister will understand the frustration at the lack of detail from the Government on what happens next.
The point was made earlier that these amendments should not be necessary. My noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton said that we were holding the Government to account for the solemn commitment they have made and to do what they have promised to do. The Government and the noble Lord at the Dispatch Box have been clear on Northern Ireland: they support frictionless trade, they want a soft border and they support the Good Friday agreement. The noble Lord has been clear that that is the Government’s objective. What has never been clear, and has led to the debate tonight, is how that is to happen.
We heard from my noble friend Lord Hain, when he opened the debate, that there was over 300 miles of border. My noble friend Lady Kennedy said that 30,000 commuters cross the border daily—including for schools and hospital visits—over 400 commercial vehicles cross each month, and 40% of container movements to the Republic of Ireland go through Northern Ireland. There is a huge issue to address and a commitment is required—not, “We want this to happen” or “We believe this will happen”; it has to be an explanation of how we can make it happen.
My noble friend Lord Browne and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, referred to paragraphs 49 and 50 of the joint report produced in December, which are quite clear about why there should be no hard border, but that contradicts government commitments. The Prime Minister has referred several times to her red lines—no single market and no customs union—yet here we are talking about full regulatory alignment. The two are contradictory and that is why some of these concerns have arisen.
Most of the points have been covered in the debate and there is little of great substance that I can add, but I would like to make two points. I do not know if the Minister is aware of the follow-up letter to Karen Bradley signed by noble Lord, Lord Boswell, chairman  of the House of Lords European Union Committee, on UK-Irish relations. In paragraph 52 the noble Lord accepts that,
“a degree of constructive ambiguity can be helpful during negotiations”.
He understands that, but he goes on to indicate that we need clarification from the Government of their understanding of what is involved in that December agreement. The European Union has come forward but we have not seen what the Government’s understanding is of how it will work. What does “full regulatory alignment” mean? I think I understand what it means, but the Government seem to believe something different.
The letter also refers to technology. The Government have said several times that they can deal with the border issue by using technology. There are grave doubts about that, as we have heard from other noble Lords in this debate. The letter from the EU Committee reminds the Secretary of State that,
“there is a need for realism … There is also a distinction between identifying solutions that are theoretically possible and applying them to a 300-mile border with hundreds of formal and informal crossings”—
a situation similar to that between Sweden and Norway—
“and the existence of which is politically divisive. Any physical infrastructure at the border would be politically contentious and, in the view of the PSNI, a security risk”.
In our long debate today we have not talked about the security issues, but the Minister who is to respond has to understand that unless he can provide a solution to how there will not be a hard border in Northern Ireland, there remains a security risk to those who fought the hardest to secure peace, a point made very powerfully by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames.
Finally, the ideological position on Brexit must be put to one side. In the Mansion House speech made by the Prime Minister just a couple of weeks ago, she showed that she is prepared to take what I suppose is a pragmatic eraser to some of those red lines and smudge them a bit—make them slightly pink—as she has done on the agencies. The time has come when I hope the noble Lord can give the Committee some confidence that the Government understand why these concerns have been raised. It is not good enough simply to say that this is what the Government want; they have to show the intent of how it can be achieved.

Lord Duncan of Springbank: There is a lot to be going on with this evening. I thank all noble Lords for their wide-ranging contributions. I hope that I will be able to do justice to the amendments before us, but let me begin by making a few general observations. We have in this Chamber tonight a number of the architects of the Belfast agreement. The word “architect” is often used. Architects create edifices which we may gaze at, but in truth the noble Lords present in this Chamber were not so much architects as mechanics. They created an engine that needs to be maintained and taken care of. It cannot be left alone in perpetuity; it requires tender loving care on every occasion. That is why a number of the points which have been raised go back to the Belfast agreement.
Let me be frank: the Belfast agreement remains the cornerstone of the United Kingdom Government’s policy as they approach Brexit. Further, the Belfast agreement is enshrined in international law, so it has a basis that is broader than simply membership of the EU. A number of noble Lords have made the point that it is our membership of the EU which was a factor in the agreement, and I do not think that that logic can be faulted. Equally, however, a great responsibility now rests with each of the partners as we address the reality of Brexit. That responsibility rests equally with the Government of Ireland, the Government of the United Kingdom and the European Union. That is why when we look at the joint report which was published in December, we see that at its heart is a recognition of each of the elements that we have talked about in this debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, talked about the response of the EU to that report going forward. If I were being very frank, I would express a degree of disappointment in that for one simple reason. Of the three options that were set out in that joint report, the EU lawyers and negotiators have chosen to take forward only one into the text that we are confronting today. I believe that that is unhelpful.

Lord Liddle: My Lords—

Lord Duncan of Springbank: Perhaps I may make some progress but I will return to the noble Lord if he will allow me. We have had a very wide-ranging discussion and we will come back to his point.
As we go forward, I want to stress again that the key thing which the Government must achieve in the negotiations is an equitable, sensible and sustainable solution. A number of noble Lords have referred to certain elements which must and will appear in subsequent Bills, whether they are questions about agriculture, fisheries, broader trade or electricity. All these will fit in sensibly to those parts and the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill will afford an opportunity for noble Lords to address all these particular points. We as a Government are determined to ensure that all the commitments on Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland set out in the joint report are turned into legally binding text—not just one of them. Each of them has to be a component part. All the parties involved must recognise that, to ensure that it is indeed the case. Further, we have been clear that in all circumstances we will protect the UK internal market. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, was very persuasive in the way that he set out the reality of the market as it affects the Province of Northern Ireland, and we cannot lose sight of that. Nor can we see a border suddenly appear down the middle of the Celtic Sea or Irish Sea; that in itself would be wrong. We therefore need to find, along with the EU, an approach that works.
I turn now to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. In some ways the points I am going to make echo those of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, because in certain respects the key thing will be for the two respective Governments to ensure that they create a situation in which there is a  disincentive to abuse the border. That will be the first step. On the points raised by the noble Baroness about the physicality of checks and the reality of what they might look like, I wanted to be very clear about what I would say in my response, so I scribbled a note for my officials in the Box in order that I would not in any way stray on to thin ice. To be clear: there will be no impediment at the land border to the movement of people—no checks and no profiling, full stop. That is the ambition and the policy of the United Kingdom Government.
Going forward from that, I shall address the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. She raised the question of regulatory alignment, which was covered in the joint report. It is important to recognise that alignment is about pursuing the same objectives. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister stated in her Florence speech, it is about achieving the same goals by the same means or achieving the same goals by different means. In many respects, as a former Member of the European Parliament, I am familiar with that approach. It is like the difference between producing a regulation and producing a directive. A directive sets out clearly what the ambition should be but gives greater latitude to those to reach the particular ambition. A regulation does none of that. It is set in stone and in law and it must be followed. The noble Baroness will recognise that in the negotiations it will be necessary for both sides to achieve an understanding of what that will mean. That is because, in truth, it will affect both sides and it will disproportionately affect Ireland over the United Kingdom. That is why the negotiations will be conducted on a very sensitive and sensible footing. I do not impute the sinister motives raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle.

Lord Liddle: My Lords—

Lord Duncan of Springbank: I should like to make some progress, so I hope that noble Lords will forgive me.

Order!

Lord Duncan of Springbank: We have been here for some time and there has been a wide-ranging discussion. I hope that I will be forgiven if I seek to make a little progress.

No!

Lord Duncan of Springbank: Well, I will make progress without the forgiveness of noble Lords on this occasion.
On Amendment 187A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and Amendment 215 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, the joint report makes clear the Government’s commitment to avoiding a hard border, including any physical infrastructure or related checks and controls—a point made on more than one occasion by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, most recently in her speech on 2 March. That is the policy of Her Majesty’s Government. We have put it before noble Lords as a statement of the policy; the interpretation of it must rest in noble Lords’ hands, but that is the policy we put forward.
Amendment 198 was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in a very expansive and careful manner; I believe the entire House appreciates that. The Government made clear during the Bill’s passage in the other place that we will include an appropriate provision in the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill iterating each element of the agreement we reach, including the protections set out in the joint report. Passage of the implementation Bill will provide an opportunity for noble Lords to scrutinise the specific provisions envisaged in today’s amendment as they appear in that Bill. There will be an opportunity at length, I hope, to address these point specifically.
I am conscious that the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, require some attention. As I say that, I am conscious that the important issue she raised is about how we ensure that the children of Northern Ireland—indeed, of the entire United Kingdom—understand what we do here, not just in your Lordships’ House but in the other place too. To some degree, explaining what we do and why we are trying to do it is incumbent on each of us. The key thing will be ensuring that children can be part of that ongoing discussion and dialogue and see that making laws is not an easy process, responding to democratic challenges is not simple and sometimes there will be positions that are challenging to hear but none the less must be taken forward. A number of noble Lords have raised the issue again of the nature in which the Brexit vote took place.
I listened to the remarks of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, who can often calm the House with his careful and considerate remarks. He captured that very well when he reminded us of the challenges we face in trying to move this forward. We need to be careful because a generation awaits the outcome of what we do here today and what the Government do in ongoing negotiations. There is no doubt about that. That is why, as I have said on more than one occasion in your Lordships’ House, the key must always be to secure an Executive in Northern Ireland that will be part of that process. Those voices are missed from the processes we are taking forward at this time.
As we give consideration to the appropriateness of the amendments, I am also aware that there will be opportunities for certain aspects of them to be addressed more head-on as we move through the negotiations. In putting these points before noble Lords, I hope I appear to have been, in some respects, more focused on the amendments than the broader discussion, but I do not doubt that there will be opportunities for further broad discussion. On this occasion, I hope that the noble Baroness will find it appropriate to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Liddle: Before the Minister sits down, I think he will allow me to make my point now. I want to say how much I welcome his tone and the spirit in which he has approached the House on this. I think he is a very constructive Member of the Front Bench opposite. In that context, I want to raise my concerns.
I am on the EU Select Committee. We have taken a lot of interest in the Irish question and produced reports. I am very concerned by the fact that the  Government produced their proposals on a customs partnership last August and made a commitment in the December consensus, but there is absolutely no evidence that the Government have come forward with any alternative proposals on the border to those of the Commission. In circumstances where they have had all this time and no alternative proposal has been produced, a reasonable person can conclude only that the Government have concluded that there is no alternative to remaining in the customs union and the only way they have of trying to spike being cornered in this way is to try to get the EU 26 to tell the Irish that they have to back off a bit. Is that sinister? After all this delay and the lack of information on what the Government are doing about the border, it is not sinister—it is a reasonable conclusion.

Lord Duncan of Springbank: I thank the noble Lord for his final comments and I am sorry if I appeared to lack politeness in not allowing them earlier.
There are negotiations that are yet to come. I do not believe it is useful in negotiations to place all your cards face up. In concluding, if I may, I will cite the words of the great country and western singer Kenny Rogers. In negotiations,
“You’ve got to know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em,
Know when to walk away, know when to run”.

Lord Hain: I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, to his post as a Minister and commend the empathy he has shown in responding to the debate, which I think the whole House welcomes.
I will not respond to the whole debate—the hour is too late—except to commend the marvellous, passionate eloquence of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames. He would be able to get me to follow him on any theological journey, which is asking a lot of me. However, I regret that the Minister has not really responded to the questions put to him. For example, the Brexit Secretary said recently that there would be no problem monitoring imports and exports between Northern Ireland and Ireland after Brexit and there would be no need for a hard border because we already do this for VAT purposes. But we can do it for VAT purposes now only because we are in the European Union’s VAT Information Exchange System—VIES. Outside the EU, we are out of that tracking system. Then, on Sunday, the Chancellor admitted that there was not an example in the world of the kind of technological open border alluded to by the Minister. Who believes for a minute that it can be done, apart from the Foreign Secretary—who thinks that South Armagh and Louth are the same as Camden and Westminster, except with more Guinness?
The Prime Minister insists that Brexit means the UK leaving the single market and the customs union, which I do not accept for a moment. We can Brexit and stay in the single market and the customs union; other countries are outside the European Union but are in either the customs union or the single market. But if she were right, the UK Government in turn would be obliged by WTO rules to enforce hard border arrangements on the island of Ireland because of the change in their relationship with the EU. Therefore, to keep the border open as it is today, there is no alternative  to Northern Ireland—and, by implication, the UK—remaining in both the single market and the customs union. I regret that the Minister, despite his empathy, has not really answered that point. I will not press my amendment.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 161A withdrawn.
Amendments 162 to 166 not moved.

Motion

Moved by Lord Young of Cookham
That the House do now resume.

Lord Adonis: On the subject of the House resuming, we have now been going for nine and a half hours. We have a very important Statement coming up, on relations with Russia, which many noble Lords who have been party to the debate for the past nine and a half hours wish to stay for. I have just been told that the Government are proposing that we do not have any break at all after the Statement, before we resume Committee stage. I see the Leader of the House is in her place. This is totally unacceptable behaviour on the Government’s part. Does she expect us to remain in session for 12 or 15 hours, conducting the business of the House, with no break whatsoever? The way in which the Government are handling Committee stage is simply unacceptable. If the Government do not give us a break, I intend to move a further adjournment when the Government attempt to resume Committee stage in, I assume, 40 minutes’ time.

Lord Young of Cookham: My Lords, there will be an opportunity for those who have been taking an interest in Committee to have a break of 40 minutes while we take the Statement. The Government are anxious to make progress with the Bill.

Lord Adonis: The Statement is on one of the most important issues facing the country. Is the noble Lord telling us that we have to choose between having a break and participating in the Statement on Russia? That is simply unacceptable. I do not think that the usual channels should have agreed it, if it has been agreed. It seems to me to be a straightforwardly unacceptable practice.
Motion agreed.
House resumed.

Salisbury Incident
 - Statement

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the response of the Russian Government to the incident in Salisbury.
First, on behalf of the whole House, let me pay tribute once again to the bravery and professionalism of all the emergency services, doctors, nurses and investigation teams who have led the response to this appalling incident and to the fortitude of the people of Salisbury. Let me reassure them that, as Public Health England has made clear, the ongoing risk to public health is low. The Government will continue to do everything possible to support this historic city to recover fully.
On Monday, I set out that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a Novichok, a military-grade nerve agent developed by Russia. Based on this capability, combined with Russia’s record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations, including against former intelligence officers whom it regards as legitimate targets, the Government concluded that it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for this reckless and despicable act. There are only two plausible explanations: either this was a direct act by the Russian state against our country or, conceivably, the Russian Government could have lost control of a military-grade nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others.
It was right to offer Russia the opportunity to provide an explanation, but its response has demonstrated complete disdain for the gravity of these events. The Russian Government have provided no credible explanation that could suggest that they lost control of their nerve agent, no explanation as to how this agent came to be used in the United Kingdom and no explanation as to why Russia has an undeclared chemical weapons programme in contravention of international law. Instead, they have treated the use of a military-grade nerve agent in Europe with sarcasm, contempt and defiance. There is no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian state was culpable for the attempted murder of Mr Skripal and his daughter and for threatening the lives of other British citizens in Salisbury, including Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey.
This represents an unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom. As I set out on Monday, it has taken place against the backdrop of a well-established pattern of Russian state aggression across Europe and beyond. It must therefore be met with a full and robust response beyond the actions that we have already taken since the murder of Mr Litvinenko and to counter this pattern of Russian aggression elsewhere. As the discussion in this House on Monday made clear, it is essential that we now come together with our allies to defend our security, to stand up for our values and to send a clear message to those who would seek to undermine them. This morning, I chaired a further meeting of the National Security Council, where we agreed immediate actions to dismantle the Russian espionage network in the UK, urgent work to develop new powers to tackle all forms of hostile state activity and to ensure that those seeking to carry out such activity cannot enter the UK, and additional steps to suspend all planned high-level contacts between the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation.
Let me start with the immediate actions. The House will recall that following the murder of Mr Litvinenko the UK expelled four diplomats. Under the Vienna convention, the United Kingdom will now expel 23 Russian diplomats who have been identified as  undeclared intelligence officers. They have just one week to leave. This will be the single biggest expulsion for more than 30 years and it reflects the fact that this is not the first time that the Russian state has acted against our country. Through these expulsions, we will fundamentally degrade Russian intelligence capability in the UK for years to come and, if Russia seeks to rebuild it, we will prevent it from doing so.
Secondly, we will urgently develop proposals for new legislative powers to harden our defences against all forms of hostile state activity. This will include the addition of a targeted power to detain those suspected of hostile state activity at the UK border. This power is currently permitted only in relation to those suspected of terrorism. I have asked the Home Secretary to consider whether there is a need for new counterespionage powers to clamp down on the full spectrum of hostile activities of foreign agents in our country. As I set out on Monday, we will also table a government amendment to the sanctions Bill to strengthen our powers to impose sanctions in response to the violation of human rights. In doing so, we will play our part in an international effort to punish those responsible for the sorts of abuses suffered by Sergei Magnitsky. I hope that, as with all the measures that I am setting out today, this will command cross-party support.
We will also make full use of existing powers to enhance our efforts to monitor and track the intentions of those travelling to the UK who could be engaged in activity that threatens the security of the UK and our allies. We will increase checks on private flights, customs and freight; we will freeze Russian state assets, wherever we have the evidence that they may be used to threaten the life or property of UK nationals or residents; and, led by the National Crime Agency, we will continue to bring the capabilities of UK law enforcement to bear against serious criminals and corrupt elites. There is no place for these people or their money in our country.
Let me be clear. While our response must be robust, it must also remain true to our values as a liberal democracy that believes in the rule of law. Many Russians have made this country their home, abide by our laws and make an important contribution to our country, which we must continue to welcome. But to those who seek to do us harm, my message is simple: you are not welcome here.
Let me turn to our bilateral relationship. As I said on Monday, we have had a simple approach to Russia: engage but beware. I continue to believe that it is not in our national interest to break off all dialogue between the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation. But in the aftermath of this appalling act against our country, this relationship cannot be the same. So we will suspend all planned high-level bilateral contacts between the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation. This includes revoking the invitation to Foreign Minister Lavrov to pay a reciprocal visit to the UK and confirming that there will be no attendance by Ministers, or members of the Royal Family, at this summer’s World Cup in Russia. Finally, we will deploy a range of tools from across the full breadth of our national security apparatus to counter the threat of hostile state activity. While I have set out some measures today, Members on all sides will understand that there are some that cannot be shared publicly for reasons of national  security. Of course, there are other measures that we stand ready to deploy at any time, should we face further Russian provocation.
None of the actions that we take is intended to damage legitimate activity or prevent contacts between our populations. We have no disagreement with the people of Russia, who have been responsible for so many great achievements throughout their history. Many of us looked at a post-Soviet Russia with hope and wanted a better relationship. It is tragic that President Putin has chosen to act in this way, but we will not tolerate the threat to the life of British people and others on British soil from the Russian Government, nor will we tolerate such a flagrant breach of Russia’s international obligations.
As I set out on Monday, the United Kingdom does not stand alone in confronting Russian aggression. In the last 24 hours, I have spoken to President Trump, Chancellor Merkel and President Macron. We have agreed to co-operate closely in responding to this barbaric act and to co-ordinate our efforts to stand up for the rules-based international order that Russia seeks to undermine. I will also speak to other allies and partners in the coming days. I welcome the strong expressions of support from NATO and from partners across the European Union and beyond.
Later today in New York, the UN Security Council will hold open consultations where we will push for a robust international response. We have also notified the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons about Russia’s use of this nerve agent and we are working with the police to enable the OPCW to independently verify our analysis.
This was not just an act of attempted murder in Salisbury, nor just an act against the UK. It is an affront to the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons and an affront to the rules-based system on which we and our international partners depend. We will work with our allies and partners to confront such actions wherever they threaten our security, at home and abroad. I commend this Statement to the House”.

Baroness Smith of Basildon: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. We are grateful for the information the Government have been able to share with us so far regarding the threat from Russia.
On Monday, I said that this incident had local, national and international ramifications. We are now seeing an escalation on all three of those fronts. The people of Salisbury are dealing with an attempted murder, through a nerve agent, on British soil and in their home town, with total disregard for the lives of British citizens. We welcome that the evidence that the risk to the public was low appears to be correct, and that those members of the public who sought medical attention for poisoning symptoms have been cleared. We again send our best wishes to Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey. We also recognise that there are ongoing checks and issues in Salisbury. This was an unacceptable and reprehensible attack, and the response must be robust. We cannot continue with business as usual, and we welcome the measures announced.
The Prime Minister is clear in her Statement, as she said on Monday, too, that we deploy an “engage but beware” strategy when dealing with Russia. Following the high-level diplomatic expulsions, what form do the Government expect that engagement to take in the future? The noble Baroness will be aware of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report on Russia, which confirmed that engagement is vital both to de-escalate points of difference and avoid misunderstandings, and to better understand any threat that is faced. She will be aware that President Putin is facing the first round of Russian elections this Sunday, so currently he is obviously focused on his domestic audience. This makes the support of our allies all the more important.
The UK has called for an urgent meeting of the UN Security Council. Donald Tusk has announced that EU leaders will discuss this issue at their summit next week, and there will be a NATO meeting tomorrow. International co-ordination is key for any action against Russia to be successful, so will the noble Baroness update the House on the preparations for potential UN Security Council resolutions that should be drafted in order to get the widest possible international support?
Will the noble Baroness also update the House on investigations being carried out on other deaths under similar circumstances? While the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal is confronting us today, what efforts are being made by the Government to reassess the deaths of Mr Skripal’s wife Liudmila, who died in 2012, and his elder brother and his son, who died within the past two years?
Sergei and Yulia Skripal were not regarded as facing a high risk and were not living under a witness protection programme. They lived openly under their own names. What assessment has now been undertaken to review the protection currently offered to other Russian citizens who are not currently deemed, or were not previously deemed, to be high risk?
We welcome the Government’s intention to table a Magnitsky amendment to the sanctions Bill to see the UK doing more to challenge gross human rights abuses. We look forward to seeing the detail. The noble Baroness announced plans to look at further legislative powers to support our defences against hostile state action, and we will work constructively with the Government to scrutinise the proposals that are brought forward. On plans for powers at the border, the noble Baroness will understand that there will need to be safeguards to ensure that the power is used properly to protect citizens and is not open to abuse. On all these issues, will the Government work with the Intelligence and Security Committee and all other relevant committees of Parliament to ensure we understand the threat Russia poses and the consequent pressures on our intelligence and security services and how best they are to be supported and resourced to do the job they have to do?
The Prime Minister announced that the Government have commissioned the OPCW independently to verify the Government’s analysis of the nerve agent. Will the noble Baroness provide assurances to the House that  the Government will work with the OPCW to strengthen its chemical weapons monitoring system and encourage an investigation, including the inspection of relevant facilities in Russia?
Finally, all this serves to emphasise how essential it is that we work internationally. International co-operation, European co-operation and engagement are the only way to tackle any threats and, indeed, to seek to prevent them.

Lord Newby: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. Like her, I start by paying tribute to the professionalism and dedication of the emergency services, the medical staff and others in Salisbury who are dealing with what is clearly a more complicated business in cleaning up and in dealing with a rather larger number of people who have been affected by this incident than was at first apparent.
The conclusion that this incident represents an unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom is stark and unavoidable. On these Benches, we agree with the Government that, that being so, this act needs to be met with a full and robust response. The challenge is to identify practical and effective measures to constitute that response. The Government have come up with a number. The first proposal is to,
“expel 23 Russian diplomats who have been identified as undeclared intelligence officers”.
If they are indeed undeclared intelligence officers, this seems a fully justified measure.
Secondly, the Government plan to,
“develop proposals for new legislative powers to harden our defences against all forms of hostile state activity”.
While we will obviously wish to scrutinise any such measures very carefully, and for understandable reasons we do not have the details of them yet, we welcome the proposal to introduce the Magnitsky powers. That is something that we have been calling for for some time, so the Government will have our support in getting those powers on to the statute book. Is the noble Baroness able to tell us whether it is intended that those powers will be introduced by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill or whether they will be coming forward in free-standing legislation?
Thirdly, the Government plan to,
“increase checks on private flights, customs and freight”.
On a number of occasions, your Lordships’ House has debated the potentially damaging consequences of the lack of checks on private flights, so this is welcome. The concern is that this is potentially a very big commitment, because there is a very large number of small airports which are currently almost totally unregulated. We look forward to hearing from the Government how they expect to be able to do that effectively and what the manpower and cost implications will be.
The final strand of the Government’s proposals relates to working together internationally. Of course, that is very much to be welcomed. Within that strand, there are two principal international interlocutors, the first being NATO. Given the strength of the Prime Minister’s language, about the incident involving the unlawful use of force by the Russian state, have the  Government given any consideration as to whether these events would justify invoking Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty? Finally, it is obviously the case, as the Government have recognised, that the attitude of our EU partners is very important. The Prime Minister has spoken to Chancellor Merkel and President Macron. I believe that earlier today President Tusk proposed adding to the agenda of next week’s European Council an item relating to this incident. Could the noble Baroness tell us whether the Government have yet accepted that invitation?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their comments, and I will endeavour to answer the questions that they have posed. The noble Baroness asked about continued engagement with Russia. As the Statement made clear, we have suspended high-level engagement, but of course we will continue to engage with Russia through international fora such as the UN, so there will be mechanisms by which we will maintain a dialogue.
Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord were absolutely right to point out the need to work with international partners. As we made clear in the Statement, the issue will indeed be put on the agenda for next week’s EU Council, and we look forward to that discussion. We have been engaging with NATO at the highest levels, as the noble Baroness rightly said, and there is a meeting of the NATO Council tomorrow to discuss this. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about Article 5. We do not consider this incident needs to be raised under NATO Article 5, given the engagement already under way. Later today, the UN Security Council will also hold initial consultations, and as the Statement made clear, we will be pushing it for a robust international response. But we were waiting, as indeed our international partners were, to see Russia’s response to the reasonable questions that were set out yesterday. Obviously now that we have had that response, we will start to work together with our partners to engage with them on where we go next.
The noble Baroness asked about previous incidents involving Russians. We of course take seriously any suggestion that a foreign state has engaged in murder on UK soil. Our immediate priority is the Salisbury investigation, but my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has replied to a letter sent by Yvette Cooper, saying that in the weeks to come she will want to satisfy herself that the allegations made about previous incidents in which investigations at the time did not discover evidence of foul play are nothing more than that. The police and MI5 agree and will assist in that endeavour. She will make the information public if anything further comes to light as a result of that.
The noble Baroness also asked about the OPCW. We will be working closely with it. We made a national statement to its executive council yesterday and will continue to talk to it about what further action it might take. We are of course working with the police to enable the OPCW to independently verify our analysis and share it with international partners.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness mentioned the Magnitsky amendment. It is our intention that that will be brought forward within the sanctions Bill in the other place.

Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House mentioned that the ongoing risk to public health is low, but I am concerned about the 38 people who reported to the hospital that they had been exposed last Sunday. I know that the noble Baroness has seen the report in the Times of an interview with Mr Vil Mirzayanov, who said that the chemical was 10 times more powerful than nerve gas, that the damage to the human body was “irreparable”—which is what I said to the noble Baroness on Monday—and that there is no cure. He said that symptoms might develop gradually, so the people who were cleared on Sunday might well develop symptoms later, and that anyone exposed should have permanent medical surveillance. Would the noble Baroness kindly ask the Secretary of State for Health to advise all GPs in the Salisbury area of the possibility that patients might come with severe health problems later on in life? I know that the symptoms can be very bizarre and am concerned that these patients are not set on the mental health route. Would she also give those who have reported—they can presumably be traced—some sort of identification or ensure some means of getting on to their medical notes the fact that they have been exposed, even in tiny amounts?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: We are certainly aware of a number of individuals who have presented at Salisbury District Hospital following the recent incident. Those individuals have been assessed and discharged, and have been advised that if they subsequently feel unwell they should re-present at hospital. Advice has been provided to GPs, acute hospitals and emergency departments across the NHS on the action that should be taken if individuals present following exposure to chemicals. There is some evidence that repeated exposure to trace levels of a contaminant over an extended period could cause harm, and that is why a lot of the focus of the current work is on preventing long-term exposure. However, I shall take the comments and suggestions made by the noble Countess back to the Department of Health.

Lord Soley: My Lords, an attack with a weapon of mass destruction on British soil is profoundly serious and very dangerous, and the Government deserve our support throughout the House on their reaction to this. It is very clear that Putin is using this to boost his nationalist image of “Russia surrounded”, and we have to be aware of the propaganda value of that. We also have to be aware that he uses it to threaten and frighten anyone in Russia who is thinking of moving over to the West; this is really a terrorist-type attack on such people. The Chemical Weapons Act is profoundly important here. There seems little doubt that the production of banned chemical weapons is going on in Russia, and that needs to be addressed at every level possible. All our allies are important in that.
My other point is about Russia Today. I regard RT as a pretty sophisticated propaganda channel but it would be a mistake for us to take any action to ban it, for two reasons. First, if we did, it would give the Russians—or the Russian Government, to be more precise—a wonderful excuse to ban the BBC, which is one of our ways of talking to the Russian people.  Secondly, it would make us look, and the Russian state would certainly use it in this way, as if we were against a free press.

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: I thank the noble Lord for his very constructive comments, and I agree with them. The noble Lord sitting in front of him asked earlier in the week about Russia Today. As I said then, any revoking of a broadcasting licence is a matter for Ofcom, which obviously has stringent rules relating to ensuring that news is reported accurately and impartially. The noble Lord is right, however: Russia enjoys a near monopoly over Russian-language media across the post-Soviet space and uses it to spread disinformation. It is as important as ever that Russian speakers have a choice in the media that they consume and are able to access reliable and objective information. So, in addition to BBC Russia, we will be investing about £8 million next year in supporting public service and independent media operating in the Russian language.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I must wonder how this incredibly dangerous substance got into the UK. Given the Government’s conclusions overall, one cannot but speculate that the Russian Government may have abused the Vienna conventions on the immunity of diplomatic bags to bring it in. It is not the sort of thing that you bring in on an aeroplane and hope will not be detected at customs. Are there any provisions by which the immunities for Russian diplomatic bags could be suspended?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: Obviously this is an ongoing investigation, and I am afraid I cannot comment on those particular issues.

Lord Paddick: My Lords, we on these Benches, as my noble friend Lord Newby said, very much welcome the measures outlined in the Statement to ensure that those seeking to carry out hostile state activity cannot enter the UK—for example, by enhancing our efforts to monitor and track the intentions of those travelling to the UK, and increasing checks on private flights, customs and freight. Bearing in mind that the current Border Force budget is £51 million less than it was in 2012-13, when 23 million fewer passengers entered the UK than entered last year, can the Minister reassure the House that the Border Force budget will be increased to ensure that those measures can be effectively implemented?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: I can certainly assure the noble Lord that we adopt a rigorous approach to border security. Agencies work together at the border to manage a range of threats, including those posed by terrorism and serious and organised crime. The Border Force has a range of capabilities to detect, target and identify substances and materials that could cause harm. This includes Cyclamen, a joint Home Office and UK Border Force counterterrorism initiative to detect and intercept the illicit importation of radiological and nuclear material into the UK.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, does not the use of Novichok in the attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal in Salisbury, which is reminiscent of the  use of the VX nerve agent, used to assassinate Kim Jong-nam in Kuala Lumpur Airport, and the use of chemical weapons in the conflict in Syria, remind us that chemical and biological weapons are not a throwback to the Cold War? Should we not therefore be giving consideration now to the re-establishment of the Army’s disbanded chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear regiment?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: The noble Lord is absolutely right to highlight the seriousness of the situation facing us. We obviously comply fully with all our obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and we will be working very closely with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to ensure that we try to prevent this happening again.

Lord Browne of Ladyton: I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I support entirely the Government’s robust response in these dreadful circumstances. On 29 September last year, President Putin declared that the Russian Federation had destroyed all its chemical stocks and chemical production facilities. It was congratulated by the then director-general of the OPCW on having done so. The logical conclusion that Russia has a production facility in contravention of international law exposes a serious flaw in the inspection and verification system of the international prohibition and nuclear weapons regime. This may not be an immediate priority, but soon will we not need to convene with our allies—at the very least a conference of experts—to look at how this international regime can be improved and, in particular, whether modern technology, of which there is much, can significantly improve our ability to inspect and verify countries that claim to be free of these dreadful weapons, when perhaps they are not?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: The noble Lord is absolutely right that the international community, including ourselves, welcomed the OPCW statement in September 2017 on the complete destruction of Russia’s declared chemical weapons stockpile. It is important to clarify that these were declared weapons of the Russian state, which is exactly why the Prime Minister asked for an explanation of how the Novichok nerve agent came to be used in Salisbury last week. The noble Lord is absolutely right, as I said in a previous answer, that we made a national statement to the OPCW executive council and we will be talking to it about further actions we can take in the future.

Lord Cormack: My Lords, what advice are we giving British visitors to Russia, particularly those who are of Russian birth but are now naturalised British subjects who are planning to go this weekend, which happens to be an election weekend? Can my noble friend pass on any advice? I have a specific reason for asking.

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: There has been an update on travel advice. Due to heightened political tensions between the UK and Russia, travellers should be aware of the possibility of anti-British sentiment or harassment. If anyone is in Russia, or due to travel in the coming weeks, they are advised to remain vigilant, avoid any protests or demonstrations and avoid publicly  commenting on political developments. While the British embassy in Moscow is not aware of any increased difficulties for British people travelling in Russia, they should of course follow the security and political situation closely, and keep up to date with further travel advice.

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem: My Lords, the Minister may be aware that there is a NATO summit scheduled for Brussels later this year. Might I suggest that it would be a relevant opportunity for enhancing and developing the levels of co-operation that are obviously essential in order to meet the new threat posed by events in Salisbury, and indeed perhaps for strengthening NATO’s strategic concept?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: Certainly, the Secretary-General has recognised this incident as of great concern to NATO. In fact, the NATO council published a statement today, saying:
“Allies expressed solidarity with the UK, offered their support in the conduct of the ongoing investigation, and called on Russia to address the UK’s questions including providing full and complete disclosure of the Novichok programme to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Allies agreed that the attack was a clear breach of international norms and agreements”.

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: It is clear that the House welcomes what was said in the Statement about defensive measures. I certainly do—I think they are appropriate and proportionate. I am, however, surprised that so little was said in the Statement about deterrent measures. The one mention of sanctions was that we shall take powers to be able in future to do more on sanctions. Why are we not saying anything about sanctions now?
I have two questions. First, given that the EU sanctions on Russia following the Crimea and then the Donbass were surprisingly effective, and given that the Government played a commendable role in ensuring that they were introduced and then maintained, are the Government contacting the EU about sanctions against Russia over this crime committed in an EU member state? Secondly, given that the sanctions that do least damage to the Russian people and have most effect on Kremlin thinking are those on particular individuals and on where they put their money, can the Minister tell us what the Government envisage on that front, on targeted sanctions against individuals known to be close to the Kremlin?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: As the noble Lord will know, the National Crime Agency will continue to bring all the capabilities of UK law enforcement to bear against serious criminal money. There is no place for these people or their money in our country. As I mentioned on Monday, we have now introduced unexplained wealth orders, which can be used to compel individuals to explain their sources of wealth; indeed, the first UWOs have already been issued by the court.
In relation to our conversations with our EU partners, this will, as I mentioned, be an agenda item at the EU Council next week and we will of course be talking to our EU partners. The Prime Minister has already spoken to Chancellor Merkel and President Macron,  among others, to see what ways forward we can find with our EU partners to look at the precise areas that the noble Lord set out.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: My Lords, Salisbury is my home town and we are still in shock. Can my noble friend tell me how Mr Skripal and his daughter—and indeed brave Sergeant Bailey—are doing and what their prospects of recovery are? Have there been any signs of anyone else getting ill, which would obviously concern us a lot?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: As I said in my answer to the noble Countess, we are aware of a number of individuals who have presented at Salisbury District Hospital following the recent incident, but they have been assessed and discharged. Advice has of course been provided to GPs, acute hospitals and emergency departments across the NHS. Mr Skripal and his daughter remain in an extremely serious condition; Detective-Sergeant Nick Bailey has been making some recovery and has been able to communicate, but all have obviously had their lives put in grave danger.

Lord Selkirk of Douglas: Will the Leader of the House accept that her Statement tonight is extremely welcome and does she agree that the use of an undeclared weapons programme in our country, seriously threatening the lives of our country men and women, remains most unacceptable? Does she also agree that, if there is further retaliation of a criminal nature against our country men and women, it will be taken very seriously indeed, and that the purpose of the Government will be to protect the lives of our country men and women, as they have in the past?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: My noble friend is absolutely right: ensuring the safety of our citizens is one of the primary functions and roles of the Government. We believe that what has been presented today is a robust but proportionate diplomatic response to this unlawful use of force against the UK by the Russian Federation. There are further measures that we stand ready to deploy at any time should we face further Russian provocation.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, have extra specialised nurses been drafted into Salisbury District Hospital, as the victims will need very careful nursing 24 hours a day?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: I am not sure. I would have to get back to the noble Baroness as to whether additional nurses have been brought in to work in Salisbury District Hospital. Certainly advice has been provided to GPs, acute hospitals and emergency departments, and all individuals who have been assessed have been discharged.

Lord Gadhia: My Lords, is the Minister aware that half Britain’s imports of liquefied natural gas so far this year have come from Russia? Does she agree that we should look closely at our energy security? In asking this question I declare my interest as a director of an energy company.

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: I thank my noble friend, and I am sure this is something that is on the minds of my colleagues.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, has the Leader of the House seen the statement that the Russian embassy has put out in response to the Prime Minister’s Statement this afternoon, and the statement by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs? It says:
“Theresa May in Parliament on measures to ‘punish’ Russia constitutes an unprecedented, flagrant provocation that undermines the foundations of normal dialogue between our countries”.
The embassy has added, for good measure:
“We believe it is absolutely unacceptable and unworthy of the British Government to seek to further seriously aggravate relations in pursuit of its unseemly political ends”.
Do those two statements not completely sum up the attitude of the Russian Government, who are in flagrant defiance, so far as one can see, of international law and good bilateral practice—with not a word of regret or apology for the events that have taken place on the streets of Salisbury, which amount to attempted murder by one state against the citizens of another state? The noble Baroness says that we have suspended high-level contacts with the Russian Government. Can she say why the Russian ambassador has not been asked to leave the country in the light of these statements put out in his name by the Russian embassy?

Baroness Evans of Bowes Park: I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord. As I said in a previous answer, we believe that this presents a robust and proportionate diplomatic response to the unlawful use of force against the UK by the Russian Federation. We thought it right to give the Russian Federation the chance to answer some significant questions that we put to them. It has failed to do so: therefore we have taken action—and we stand ready to take further action if that is proved to be necessary.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
 - Committee (7th Day) (Continued)

Motion

Moved by Lord Callanan
That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we are now well into the 11th hour of consideration of the Bill. There has been no break of any kind since lunchtime. I do not believe that noble Lords have been guilty in any way of prolonging the debate unnecessarily; I think the discussions have been perfectly reasonable, and the contributions have been precisely what we would expect of this House. To expect us to carry on with no break whatever is treating the House with contempt. I will oppose this Motion, and subsequent motions, unless the Chief Whip is, very graciously, prepared to allow us to behave in a reasonable manner in respect of the Bill.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, the arrangements for debates are frequently discussed through the usual channels, as the noble Lord will be aware.  The Statement that we have just listened to occupied the dinner break. I am afraid that the noble Lord had the opportunity, if he wished, to get sustenance. A number of noble Lords have not had dinner up to now, but no doubt they will find opportunities to do so.

Lord Adonis: Is the noble Lord saying that it was inappropriate for me to be present for the Statement on Russia repeated by the Leader of the House because I should have taken a dinner break then?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Dinner breaks are always filled with other business, or usually so. I am happy with the answer that I have given the noble Lord.

Lord Liddle: My Lords, will the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, give us an indication of when he proposes to adjourn the Committee this evening? Many of us came here on the basis that it would adjourn at 10.30 pm. Can he tell us why a decision appears to have been taken that this will no longer be the case?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The target for the day is printed on the groupings list. It states that we should,
“go no further than the group beginning amendment 220”.
We have adjusted that because of the amount of time we have spent so far on the amendments today. We have had eight and a half hours of actual discussion on the Bill today and completed four groups. We need to make progress. I am afraid that we are going to have to sit later than 10.30 pm. I would like to conclude the business at that time but I am afraid that it will not be possible unless we have an enormous rush of amendments not being moved. I think that is unrealistic, so I must tell the noble Lord that I think he will be sitting quite late this evening.

Lord Liddle: Is it the noble Lord’s view that the Committee has not been reasonable in its treatment of these amendments? We have had four very big, serious debates today which, in my view, have been of the highest quality and have shown the House of Lords at its best. Is the noble Lord telling us that there has been time-wasting?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Not at all. The House is perfectly entitled to take as much time as it wishes in debating these issues. However, as Government Chief Whip, it is my task to get this legislation through the House. I am afraid that noble Lords will have to be prepared to co-operate in that endeavour.
Division on Motion called. Division called off after three minutes due to lack of support for the Not-Contents when the Question was put a second time.
Motion agreed.
Amendments 167 to 181 not moved.
Amendment 182 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 183

Moved by Baroness Kramer
183: Clause 9, page 7, line 17, at end insert—“( ) No regulations may be made under this section until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has published a statement setting out a strategy for retaining membership of the European Investment Fund.”

Baroness Kramer: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, I am moving this amendment because it is an important amendment in an important group. I suspect that the noble Lord will want to make a more substantial speech than I will, but these amendments would essentially require the Government to have a strategy for how they build or retain engagement with the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund post Brexit.

Lord Haskel: Order. Could the noble Baroness tell the Committee to which amendment she is speaking?

Baroness Kramer: I am speaking to Amendments 183 and 187, which would require the Government to create a future strategy to retain engagement with the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund. On all sides of this House, Members have appreciated the value of both those bodies; their contribution to the UK has been substantial. In 2016, the European Investment Bank contributed support in excess of £5.5 billion to a very wide variety of projects, ranging from schools in Yorkshire to Crossrail. The European Investment Fund has played an absolutely key role in the development of new start-up companies in the UK, particularly in fintech—an area I am very close to—which received some £2 billion between 2011 and 2015. The Government have not yet made it clear to any of those in the business world, including those who rely on these sources, what the future framework will be either to continue a relationship with those two bodies or to replace them with an alternative source of funding.
From time to time the British Business Bank has been mentioned as a possible route to provide those mechanisms. However, I point out to the Government that businesses certainly need reassurance in that area if the Government intend to pursue that strategy. The British Business Bank is in no way geared up to make loans on the scale of the European Investment Bank, nor does it enter into the role that the European Investment Fund pursues, which has been very much to fund venture capital, which in turn flows into this range of start-ups.
I would like to hear from the Government how they see the future framework of the British Business Fund. Your Lordships will remember that in 2016, the Government were pursuing a strategy of essentially privatising that operation. It was widely understood that a number of companies—JPMorgan, Nunes, Deloitte and Norton Rose—were advising on the transfer of all the assets of the British Business Bank to an investment vehicle, to be called the “British Income and Lending Trust”, which would then be floated on the London Stock Exchange and its shares made  available to investors. That would have been, in effect, the end of the British Business Bank, and the Government took that as a strong position. Its actions were ended somewhat abruptly because of legal complications surrounding the privatisation of the Green Investment Bank. I regret the Government’s decision, but the complications at that point led to the delay in the same strategy being applied to the British Investment Bank.
Can the Government give us clarity on the future of our relationship with the EIB and the EIF and, if they have decided that those roles will now be picked up by the British Business Bank, can they give us assurances about what the nature of this will be or say whether a delayed privatisation will take place? Can they also tell us where the British Business Bank will get funding from and on what scale, and whether it will get both the mandate and the resources to enable it to move into this field, which is far wider than the field it is currently engaged in? Without that, we will compromise not only our vast infrastructure projects, which are absolutely critical to any kind of economic growth, but also our start-ups, and particularly that very important area of tech and fintech which has been utterly dependent—you cannot find a single fintech in the UK which has not had funding through the EIF source.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness was speaking to Amendment 183, but that is grouped with Amendments 167, 187 and 227BC, which relate to European Investment Fund and the EBRD.
We had a brief discussion about the European Investment Bank on 28 February, in which I made comments, which I will not repeat—at columns 731 and 732—about the value of the EIB, particularly for infrastructure investment, where it is a key partner, both in its own right for the investments it makes but also, crucially, in catalysing private sector investment. It acts as a strong guarantor of the determination of the state and partners to take projects forward. In my experience as a Minister, having EIB support for projects has been crucial in putting together funding packages from the public and private sectors, including different public sector partners, to make it possible for projects to go forward. Therefore, the big collapse in EIB lending—particularly the significant collapse after the notice under Article 50 was served—is of immense concern. The collapse is partly because it has been difficult getting projects going, but also because the European Investment Bank itself has withdrawn from engagement in projects because it is not at all sure of the security of its investments after 29 March next year.
This is a fast-moving situation. When we last debated this issue, it was grouped with seven or eight other issues and the Minister did not respond, except to say that the Government were engaging in negotiations on this point. Since then, the Prime Minister has made her Mansion House speech, in which the one very significant policy departure was the Government’s announcement that it would be prepared to seek associate membership of key European agencies. The two that we have discussed so far are the European Medicines Agency and EASA, the air safety agency. The Government  appear to be seeking associate membership of those agencies. Indeed, at a very advanced hour of the night on Monday, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, even managed—in the only recorded instance I have come across so far—to make complimentary references to the European Court of Justice. I have it here. He is going to “unsay” it all, I am sure—he will not let this opportunity to make derogatory remarks about European institutions pass—but it was made clear that if Britain is to remain an associate member of these organisations, it will need to play by European rules.
The key issue about which I would like to ask the Minister is why some agencies have been selected for potential continued British membership and not others. On the face of it, many other agencies the Government have not chosen to seek associate membership of are just as important. Or are the three agencies that the Prime Minister set out in her Mansion House speech examples of agencies the Government might seek membership of, but not by any means exhaustive? This will be a crucial policy issue in the negotiations over the next few months. Specifically, I wish to ask the Minister about the European Investment Bank. It would seem that the right course of action for the Government, irrespective of the wider arguments about Brexit, is either to seek to remain a full member or, if that is not legally possible, to seek to become an associate member. It is not clear to me whether the former is legally possible. From my own conversations with the European Investment Bank when I was chair of the National Infrastructure Commission, I thought it might be. If not, however, with some creative negotiations it could well be possible to remain an associate member and to retain a shareholding in the bank. If that could be secured, it would be the least disruptive way of proceeding and would avoid serious damage to infrastructure projects going forward.
Are the Government, following the Prime Minister’s Mansion House speech, prepared to seek either full or associate membership of the European Investment Bank? If so, what might that mean for the ongoing discussions over the funding of projects that were very much within the purview of the EIB but, because of the disruption caused by Article 50 and the current Brexit negotiations, are either not being funded or are unlikely to be funded? Of course, the best course of action by far if the Government are going to seek associate or full membership of the EIB, is to get on with it as soon as possible and reach an agreement so that we unlock the funds that are currently not coming our way but could if we had an agreement with the EIB on what is going to happen.

Baroness Randerson: My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 187, which specifically refers to the European Investment Bank. I did so because, almost invisibly, the EIB has made a major contribution to investment in UK infrastructure. The advantage of the EIB, of course, is low interest rates, but it also offers commercial expertise and very highly prized advice.
I just want to illustrate the importance of the bank to our economy with some statistics. For example, in the field of transport, in 2016 over €2.5 billion was loaned to various projects in the UK. That included  loans to Merseyrail for rolling stock, to the Port of Dover and to Aberdeen harbour, and over €1.75 billion for social housing. For energy projects, €3 billion was loaned, and for education projects, €0.75 billion. In my own country of Wales, in 2016 Swansea University borrowed €71 million for a splendid and wonderful new campus. It is so large that it is almost the size of a small town and it is very highly regarded. Bangor University borrowed €10 million for a new campus. Here in London, Transport for London is, in Britain, just about the biggest borrower from the EIB and has relied on it very heavily. Since 2002, there have been loans to London Underground for the Northern line extension, for Crossrail rolling stock, for Stratford International station, for the East London line and for the DLR Woolwich Arsenal extension, and that is in addition to seven other Underground schemes.
Noble Lords will see immediately the importance of this borrowing to some fundamental sectors of our economy: energy, transport, education—particularly universities—and urban regeneration and housing. In 2015, in total the UK received over €16.5 billion. In 2016, that went down to €9 billion, and in 2017 it was around only €3 billion. There was an immediate drop-off in the number of projects funded, and new lending by the EIB to the UK fell by almost two-thirds last year.
The Welsh Government had been hoping to use the bank to fund the South Wales Metro project and the M4 relief road. Already in Wales, providers of social housing have had to look elsewhere for funds, and that of course costs more. An increase of 200 basis points in the cost of capital would lead to an increase of around £1.5 million per annum for each £100 million borrowed.
There may not be an official moratorium on lending to the UK by the EIB but clearly the bank is already concerned about the future basis for repayment. It has been suggested that we should set up our own development bank, although so far the Government have not expressed interest in this. Can the Minister clarify the position of the UK Government on setting up our own investment bank? However, even if the Government were keen to do that, it would take years for a new bank to gain scale and expertise. There could also be uncertainty about its status. There could be a problem with the classification of its funding, as it could be classified as providing state aid, and we know that the Prime Minister has already said that she wants to observe international rules on state aid. The recent experience of setting up the British Business Bank and the Green Investment Bank indicates that it can be a complex and lengthy process. As a minimum, I believe that the UK Government should make it clear that they wish to negotiate a specific mandate for continued bank lending by the EIB to the UK as part of our future arrangements.
On the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, 90% of EIB lending is to EU member states. However, it also lends to EFTA states and to others preparing to join the EU. It therefore would not stretch the imagination too much that it might be possible for it to lend to those preparing to leave the EU. The rules and conditions of the EU guarantee for the EIB’s external lending are decided by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, and those rules were most  recently decided in 2014. The Government need to negotiate an amendment to that decision. Do the Government intend to do so?
I hope I have illustrated that the amendment does not refer to a hypothetical situation. This is not a prediction that doom might come but a factual statement of the situation with the European Investment Bank as it is now: it has stopped lending. This has had a serious impact on our infrastructure, which is already showing signs of strain as a result. The lending could dry up altogether and projects will have to find an alternative source, but that source will be more expensive and less reliable. I urge noble Lords to take an interest in this issue, which is fundamental to the development of our infrastructure in this country.

Lord Leigh of Hurley: I shall speak briefly to Amendment 183. I am aware of the EIF because of its investment in the UK venture capital industry, in which I serve on a professional basis from time to time. I understand that the Chancellor has committed an extra £2.5 billion to the BBB specifically to make up for the loss of future investment from the EIF into venture capital funds in the UK, which would negate the need for this. There is a problem in that the EIF, from Article 50 being triggered, has announced that it is looking only at funds where two-thirds of the investment will be in the EU and at least 50% in continental Europe. So organisations that contribute enormously to our economy—for example, social impact investment companies such as Bridges, which is 100% investing in UK companies—have, from the moment of Article 50 being triggered, had the decision-making process frozen by the EIF. This has been damaging to them. I suggest—the Minister might care to comment—that the problem is not here and then after we exit the EU but in the transition period. For some unknown reason, the EIF is freezing the money rightfully due to UK investments.

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I can at least discuss the EIB with the qualification of someone who nearly borrowed money from it. I commend the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, because it was EIB expertise that helped me to persuade the Government to fund the Jubilee line extension. We were then able to have even cheaper money called government grants, so it was all right in the end.
This group of amendments illustrates that in the whole Brexit debate there are unintended consequences that were clearly not thought through at the time of the referendum. We discussed some on Monday, such as haulage, airlines and so on. What we need to hear from the Government tonight is either that they intend to pursue this course and try to produce appropriate associate agreements—or whatever the right term is—with these institutions, or that they will set out how they will provide the money and expertise that make sure that they do not put a serious dent in the already inadequate investment programmes in the United Kingdom.

Lord Callanan: My Lords, this group of amendments—frankly, I have lost track of who moved what and which ones are in the group,  but I will be generous and address all the issues that were part of the original grouping under the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, although the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has moved Amendment 183—addresses two quite distinct institutions, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the European Investment Bank, including its subsidiary, the European Investment Fund. If the Committee will permit, I will address each of them in turn.
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development is an international financial institution that is based in London and is subject to its own establishing agreement through a multilateral treaty that was laid before Parliament in 1990. The EBRD is led by a British president, Sir Suma Chakrabarti, who in 2016 was re-elected to serve a second four-year term. The bank is not an EU institution and therefore the UK’s membership is fully independent of EU membership. As such, the European Council does not have dominion over the membership or operation of the EBRD. The UK’s exit from the EU will not have any bearing on the location of the bank’s headquarters in London, which is enshrined in its articles of agreement. The EBRD has also publicly reiterated that Brexit will have no impact on the UK’s membership and the London headquarters. Amendment 167 is therefore unnecessary and would have no effect on UK membership, which will continue unaffected after the UK leaves the EU. The Government have made it clear in recent Answers to Parliamentary Questions that the UK remains firmly committed to the EBRD and that exit from the EU will have no impact on our continuing membership. With that reassurance, although I am not sure whether the noble Lord moved the amendment, I hope that he will feel able not to press it.
Amendment 227BC would create a negotiating objective for the UK to remain a full member of the European Investment Bank. The EU treaty defines members of the EIB as EU member states. It also sets out that only members can hold capital in the bank and participate on its board. That means that in March 2019 the UK will no longer be a full member of the EIB, as it will no longer be a member state of the European Union. However, let me reply directly to the questions put by the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. The Chancellor has made it clear that the UK considers that it may prove to be in the mutual interest of all sides for the UK to maintain some form of ongoing relationship with the EIB group after leaving the EU. The UK will explore these options—

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: Why did the Minister say “may” when surely he means “will”? Will he think again about that?

Lord Callanan: If the noble Lord will forgive me, I will use the words as I have said them. These issues are matters for negotiation, so we will use the word “may” instead of “will”. Obviously, we cannot impose our will on our negotiating partners. The UK will explore the options with the EU as part of the negotiations on the future relationship.
Perhaps I may use this opportunity to respond to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, on agencies. I think that I indicated to him during the debate that the list issued by the Prime Minister was not necessarily an exclusive one and that we are considering carefully a range of options. Where there is a demonstrable national interest in pursuing a continued relationship with an agency or other EU body, the Government will carefully consider whether we should pursue it, at which point of course it will be a matter for the negotiations. We will continue to update noble Lords on our negotiations, subject to the usual caveat of not undermining our negotiating position.
Amendment 227BC seeks to make it an objective of the Government to achieve a particular outcome in the negotiations on our future relationship with the EIB. It is important that the Government should maintain negotiating flexibility in this and all other areas in order to achieve the best deal for the UK. However, as I said, we have not discounted maintaining some form of ongoing relationship, if that supports an overall deal. I hope that that will be sufficient for the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Amendments 183 and 187 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish a strategy for retaining access to the EIB and the EIF. As Parliament has agreed, we will not publish anything that would undermine our ability to negotiate the best deal for the United Kingdom. Any information on potential economic considerations and negotiating strategy is important to the negotiating capital of all parties. Publishing a statement from the Chancellor setting out the strategy for retaining access to the EIB and its subsidiary, the EIF, will ultimately harm our negotiating position. However, as I said in response to Amendment 227BC, I can assure the Committee that we have not discounted maintaining some form of ongoing relationship with the EIB group if that proves to be part of the best overall deal for the UK.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked about the British Business Bank.

Lord Dykes: Can the Minister explain, distinctly and clearly, to the Committee the distinction between demonstrable national interests and the national interest adjudicated by Jacob Rees-Mogg, Bill Cash and others?

Lord Callanan: We are having a serious debate about the EIB. The noble Lord is demeaning the subject before the House.
The British Business Bank has already raised the limit on the amount that it can invest in venture capital funds from 33% to 50%. It has also brought forward the £400 million of additional investment that was announced in the Autumn Statement. As a result, we expect it to have doubled its investment in venture capital this financial year. We have also broadened the range of the UK guarantee scheme by offering construction guarantees for the first time. I hope that that addresses the noble Baroness’s question.

Baroness Kramer: Perhaps I could just press the Minister on that, although I appreciate that he may not have an answer. In terms of volume, what he has discussed does not meet the need. Businesses are concerned  that we may not end up with an appropriate relationship with the EIB and the EIF. Are the Government looking at similar programmes but on a relatively minor scale?

Lord Callanan: I do not have an answer to that question. I will come back to the noble Baroness on that. I have only the figures that I outlined to her.
I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord enough not to press whichever amendment he wished to move.

Lord Adonis: The Minister’s response was helpful and I completely accept his reassurances on the EBRD. That issue is clear. My amendment was just a probing one to elicit the response that he has given, which is that there is no relationship with the EU and therefore our position is not affected at all.
The Minister made tantalising remarks suggesting flexibility on a wide range of agencies and the Government’s position on them. He said that this would be a matter for the ongoing negotiations. This will be a big issue for us when we come to Report because, as he knows, a lot of the amendments that we have been going through have sought to elicit from the Government their intentions toward individual agencies. Is he in a position to let us know before Report which agencies the Government will seek either full or associate membership of? Otherwise, I am not quite sure how the House will proceed on Report. We will be presenting amendments that seek continued British engagement with agencies when we do not know whether it is the Government’s policy to share that objective.

Lord Callanan: I understand the noble Lord’s point. As we have gone through the various categories of debate, I think that we have been reasonably clear on where we see the values in certain agencies in the individual sectors that have been talked about. The difficulty with putting any of these requirements to achieve something in statute is that this is a negotiation. We can seek to achieve anything, but if our negotiating partners are not interested in discussing it, it would be very difficult to do. We have gone as far as we can and I do not want to go any further this evening than the statement that I have already given. In her Mansion House speech, the Prime Minister gave some examples of agencies that we would be willing to participate in, subject to the negotiations. That applies to a lot of other agencies that have been mentioned at various stages, so I do not want to go any further at the moment. As soon as we have any information that we can share with the House, we will do so.

Lord Adonis: I do not think that the Minister quite grasped the point that I was making, which was not about whether it is appropriate to have requirements of this kind in legislation. The question was simply about knowing whether the Government seek to negotiate continued engagement in particular agencies so that we know whether it is appropriate for noble Lords to move amendments on Report calling for an objective that, unbeknown to us, the Government may be seeking to achieve anyway.

Lord Callanan: I will take the noble Lord’s statement as an invitation to give some thought to the matter, to consult ministerial colleagues and to see what further information we can share before Report.
Amendment 183 withdrawn.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am extremely anxious to speak to Amendment 174.

Lord Haskel: I fear that it was called and there was no response. I am now at Amendment 184.

Lord Adonis: I am still anxious to speak about roaming. The only reason why I was unable to move my amendment is that I was in a Division Lobby, not because of any lack of willingness to move it. Yet again, we see how these proceedings are not being well conducted, if noble Lords are unable to move amendments because of procedural matters.
Amendments 184 to 194 not moved.
Debate on whether Clause 9 should stand part of the Bill.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, this may be an opportunity, then, for me to make the speech I was going to make on Amendment 174, procedure in this House being endlessly flexible. I can assure the Minister that I am not going to give up on these things: we will find a way of getting back to them, one way or another. The issue I want to address, even at this late hour, coming into our 12th hour of debate today, is roaming charges and the EU’s digital single market.
If you asked ordinary members of the public what benefits they have seen in the last year from membership of the EU, one thing they would highlight most would be the big advances we have made in digital co-operation across Europe, in particular the development of the EU’s digital single market and, last year, the ending of roaming charges for users of mobile phones between member states of the EU. This is a great triumph of British policy. To bring about this result has been an objective of British policy for the previous 20 years and it is very much due to our work and that of big British companies which have developed on the back of the development of the single market, notably Vodafone, that we have this situation in the first place. I have a specific question for the Minister: what is the Government’s policy in respect of roaming charges after next March? Are they seeking to negotiate a continuation of the current reciprocal arrangements we have, meaning there will be no roaming charges, or should mobile phones users expect that from next March roaming charges will apply because there will be no reciprocal arrangements?
My second question is about the EU digital single market. To the surprise of many people, in the Prime Minister’s Mansion House speech when she talked about areas where we are going to seek continued engagement in EU programmes, she specifically ruled out the EU digital single market:
“On digital, the UK will not be part of the EU’s Digital Single Market, which will continue to develop after our withdrawal from the EU”.
She went on:
“This is a fast evolving, innovative sector, in which the UK is a world leader. So it will be particularly important to have domestic flexibility, to ensure the regulatory environment can always respond nimbly and ambitiously to new developments”.
The big question begged by that is: if the aim is for us to be an active participant in this market, why are we not prepared to remain part of the structure which is negotiating it, so as to be there for the creation of the rules surrounding it and in a much better position to take advantage of the opportunities that will develop as a result of it?
I invite the Minister to say more about what he believes the UK’s relationship will be with the EU’s digital single market after next March. In particular, how does he think it is in the public interest for us to forgo all the benefits which have been so painstakingly and painfully negotiated over recent years, and which have given users such benefits in travelling freely without hindrance and additional charges for mobile phone technology across Europe?

Baroness Ludford: Does the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, share the surprise I feel that the Prime Minister should have said that we would not be part of the digital single market? I am at a loss to think what domestic regulatory flexibility she could be alluding to. After all, the very point of the Data Protection Act is ostensibly to implement European standards on cross-border transfers of data, which is crucial for the tech industry as well as many other industries. If we are not part of the digital single market, how are British consumers to continue to enjoy the absence—the abolition—of roaming mobile charges? The mobile operators are saying, “We hope we won’t have to put up roaming charges, but it rather depends if we are in the digital single market so that we can get access to European-level wholesale rates”. So first, a British policy not to be in the digital single market does not make any sense. Secondly, British consumers are going to take a hit when they go on the continent for business or holidays. Who is going to explain that to British consumers?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I agree with everything the noble Baroness has said. When we were given the instruction by the British people two years ago to commence negotiations on leaving the European Union, I did not meet anybody who said that the reason they wanted to leave it was so that they could pay higher mobile phone charges and restart paying roaming charges for travelling on the continent. It is a complete absurdity.
Since in her Mansion House speech the Prime Minister showed movement in many areas, which we have welcomed in earlier debates, on engagement in key areas of the single market and customs arrangements, I find it utterly mystifying that she should specifically have excluded the digital single market. This is one area in which Britain has done more than any other to forge its rules, which have been so advantageous to major British companies that would not exist if it were not for the development of the single market. Vodafone, one of the biggest and most successful companies in the country, would not exist as a serious international company if it were not for the success of successive British Governments in negotiating what has become the digital single market during the last 20 years.
I invite the Minister, with the new-found and emollient flexibility that he has been demonstrating, to say that he is prepared to take away and consider—I think that  is the phrase he now uses—Britain’s continued engagement in the digital single market. Specifically, is it the view of the Government that we should start to reintroduce roaming charges for British mobile phone users from the end of March next year?
Clause 9 agreed.

Amendment 195

Moved by Lord Tunnicliffe
195: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—“Economic outlook taking account of the terms of the withdrawal agreement(1) Following the completion of negotiations between the United Kingdom and the EU on the terms of the withdrawal agreement, the Secretary of State must commission an economic outlook from the Office for Budget Responsibility.(2) The economic outlook provided for by subsection (1) must—(a) take account of the terms of the withdrawal agreement, and(b) be laid before both Houses of Parliament before Parliament considers legislation to approve the withdrawal agreement.”

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, the most significant actor in forecasting the development of the UK economy is, of course, the Office for Budget Responsibility. It is mandated to provide two forecasts each year, yet there has been no updated forecast on the impact of Brexit since the Economic and Fiscal Outlook of November 2016. Uncertainty about how the Government will respond to the choices and trade-offs they face during the withdrawal negotiations renders forecasting extremely difficult. There has been no meaningful basis on which to form a judgment on the final outcomes.
The Government have given the OBR short shrift, referring it to the Prime Minister’s Florence speech as definitive. In that speech, Theresa May said the UK would seek to achieve a deep and special partnership with the EU and that this should span a new economic relationship. Not surprisingly, the OBR did not consider that a basis on which to update its analysis. However, the OBR did set out to forecast the outcome for certain parameters of the negotiations. It made several key assumptions about what will happen when the UK leaves the EU next March. New trading arrangements with both the EU and leading states will slow down the pace of import and export growth over the 10 years following the 2016 referendum.
The Treasury Select Committee finds this situation highly unsatisfactory, given that the OBR is required to produce regular reports analysing the risks surrounding the economic outlook for the UK. Committee members saw no reason why the OBR should not provide an update, the rationale being that it already has information on migration flows and can assess the likely state of the public finances, plus the OBR has already formed the judgment that,
“the consequences of Brexit on economic growth, whether positive or negative, are likely to be so substantial as to dwarf the impact of the financial settlement”—
a settlement that has so exercised members of the Cabinet through and since the referendum campaign.
While the Select Committee report came too late to be considered in the other place during its debates on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, it is being discussed tonight. The amendment in my name and the names of my noble friends Lord Davies of Oldham and Lord Judd offers this opportunity and calls on the OBR to publish a fresh economic outlook, something that would incorporate the terms of the withdrawal agreement and inform Parliament’s conclusions on whether to act on the outcome of the negotiations. Challenging as this task might be, a flow of firm and up-to-date information will obviously be in demand over the course of this year. Parliamentarians have the right to ask the OBR, the best placed institution, to provide the information we so clearly require. I beg to move.

Baroness Kramer: My Lords, I shall say only a few words because of the lateness of the hour, but I support this amendment. The Government have continually used the argument that they cannot provide detailed forecasts of the impact on the UK economy, jobs and other opportunities either because they do not know the full clarity of what the end agreement will look like or because any disclosure might compromise their negotiating position. I have always found that a little strange. Having negotiated trade agreements on our behalf for 40 years, there is, in fact, more expertise about the impact of these arrangements on the other side of the channel than there is on this side, so we are really not fooling anybody in any of the discussions that we have.
Setting that aside, at the point that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, describes, neither of those arguments stands any more. We will have completed our negotiations and will know the details of what we have negotiated. Do the Government not agree that transparency is both possible and crucial at that moment and, therefore, that the analysis that the noble Lord just described is vital and owed to Parliament and the British people?

Baroness Goldie: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in his absence for this amendment and thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for moving it and speaking to it. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s remit is clearly defined in legislation, under the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, as being,
“to examine and report on the sustainability of the public finances”.
In doing so, the OBR must produce at least two forecasts per financial year, which must include the impact of government policy where it can be quantified with reasonable accuracy.
The Government expect the OBR to include the impact of the withdrawal agreement alongside its forecast of the UK’s economic and fiscal outlook as soon as sufficient information is available. That would contribute to the transparency which the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is looking for. But the Government cannot dictate when that might be. This is the important distinction. It is therefore not appropriate to request the OBR to produce analysis specifically for a legislative debate, as this will draw the OBR into political debate, which could undermine its reputation as an independent and objective institution.

Baroness Kramer: But this will surely be one of the most important debates and most important votes ever held in this House. Is the noble Baroness suggesting that it is not appropriate and necessary for the OBR to provide the information that probably only the OBR is capable of providing to make sure that that vote is taken with the best knowledge available? That would be extraordinary.

Lord Tunnicliffe: Surely the OBR is up to its ears in political debate. It produces the document on which Parliament discusses the Budget, taxation and all parts of the economy. The OBR is part of the political process. It is a neutral and independent part of the political process, but it is not without the political process.

Baroness Goldie: The noble Lord identifies the important characteristic of the OBR, which is its statutory independence. That is a strength and something we all commend. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, we have to respect what the OBR by statute is required to do, and we expect it to do that.
There are practical difficulties in addition to those which I was just beginning to outline when the noble Baroness made her intervention. If the Government agreed to have a forecast ahead of the withdrawal legislation being considered by Parliament, there is simply no guarantee the OBR would be able to take the terms of the agreement into account in its forecast. For example, if there was only a short period of time between the agreement being made public and the point at which legislation is introduced, then the OBR may not have capacity to conduct a thorough analysis.

Lord Liddle: I have the most recent report from the OBR here. It seems to me that the time point is irrelevant. If we are serious about letting our own Select Committees look at the proposed withdrawal agreement, there will be time for the OBR to do a forecast. It is one of the things that it complains about in the recent report:
“We asked the Government if it wished to provide any additional information on its current policies in respect of Brexit”—
but all the Government did was send it a copy of the Prime Minister’s Florence speech. The report goes on:
“Given the current uncertainty as to how the Government will respond to the choices and trade-offs facing it during the negotiations, we still have no meaningful basis for predicting a precise outcome upon which we could then condition our forecast”.
As soon as the withdrawal agreement is known, the OBR will want to produce that. Is the noble Baroness saying it should not?

Baroness Goldie: On the contrary, as I made clear in my initial comments, the Government expect the OBR to include the impact of the withdrawal agreement alongside its forecast for the UK’s economic and fiscal outlook. In fact, the noble Lord perhaps makes the point better for me than I make it myself. The OBR’s comments, which he has just read out to me from the report, are not redolent of criticism of the Government but of an acceptance of the reality of the difficulties of the negotiation.

Baroness Kramer: This is a crucial point. It decides whether or not Parliament is in a position to make an informed vote, which is absolutely at the base of democracy. Does the Minister realise that she is inviting this House on Report to provide for a change in the statutes of the OBR to require it to produce that report and to provide it with the appropriate resources, if it needs additional staff, to be able to do it in a timely way so that the vote can be an informed one?

Baroness Goldie: I must apologise; I am clearly explaining this very poorly. I am trying to indicate to your Lordships that it is not a matter of resource or of intent; it is a matter of whether or not the OBR would have sufficient information available to conduct its analysis and come forward with any conclusions. I have made clear that, under statute, the OBR has to produce at least two forecasts per financial year, and these must include the impact of government policy. What I am anxious to avoid is that this House puts the OBR in a different situation. I was going on to explain to the noble Baroness that, as the OBR has flagged at previous fiscal events, even once the outcome of negotiations are known, its forecast will be subject to considerable uncertainty. This is particularly the case around the associated economic and fiscal consequences of the withdrawal agreement. In addition, there is another body here, the reaction of which is extremely important: the Bank of England. Its reaction is difficult to forecast, yet that reaction will have a large impact on the analysis.
I have tried to explain why I totally understand the desire for transparency—that is understood and we sympathise—but I am pointing out that the amendment would impose an unacceptable statutory obligation on the OBR in terms of its current responsibilities and its capacity to discharge them in any meaningful fashion.

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I have to admit to be stunningly underwhelmed by that response. It seems to me that the request is perfectly reasonable. It may need some tuning to fit in with timetables and so on or a condition here and there, but I hope the Government will take this idea away—it is clearly popular around the Committee—and come back with a more positive view so that the Government and Parliament at the time can be better informed. With that comment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 195 withdrawn.
Amendments 196 to 199 not moved.

Amendment 200

Moved by Lord Sharkey
200: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—“Statutory instruments under other Acts of Parliament for the purposes of withdrawal(1) The Statutory Instruments Act 1946 is amended as follows.(2) After section 9, insert—“9A Instruments relating to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union   (1) Any statutory instrument under any Act of Parliament containing regulations to make provisions for the same purposes as set out under section 7, 8 or 9 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, is subject to the same parliamentary procedure as an instrument made for the same purposes under a power provided for in those sections.(2) Subsection (1) applies instead of the parliamentary procedure set out in any Act under which the instrument is made.(3) For the purposes of this section—“the same purposes as a power provided for in those sections” means—(a) under section 7, regulations which make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate to prevent, remedy or mitigate—(i) any failure of retained EU law to operate effectively, or(ii) any other deficiency in retained EU law,arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU;(b) under section 8, regulations which make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate to prevent or remedy any breach, arising from withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU, of the international obligations of the United Kingdom; and(c) under section 9, regulations which make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate for the purposes of implementing the withdrawal agreement if the Minister considers that such provision should be in force on or before exit day;“exit day” has the same meaning as in section 14 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.””

Lord Sharkey: My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Hansard Society, whose work on delegated legislation will be known to many noble Lords. I will be brief in dealing with what is essentially a simple procedural proposal.
The issue is delegated legislation. This has already been the focus of a lot of debate, much of which has consisted of expressions of anxiety about the likely number of instruments; about the range of the powers that they confer; about timing; and about Parliament’s ability to conduct proper scrutiny. There are varying estimates of the number of SIs that the Bill will produce. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said in his letter of 20 February that it will be between 800 and 1,000. Our own EU Justice Sub-Committee thinks it may be 5,000, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, noted on Monday. What is clear is that the number will be very large. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, estimates that 20% to 30% of those SIs will trigger the affirmative procedure. That estimate is no doubt based on the rules for categorisation set out in the Bill, and will certainly prove to be an underestimate once the sifting committees get to work.
As has been noted, the SIs will give the Government an extraordinary and quite unprecedented range of powers. They will enable the creation of criminal offences without primary legislation, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has explained to us; they will allow law-making by tertiary legislation; and they will allow Ministers and, apparently, 109 others largely unfettered discretion to range across the statute book. All this presents a formidable challenge to Parliament when it comes to effective scrutiny. The Government  seem to recognise—a bit—that the situation is unprecedented and requires special care. They have written some constraints into the SI-generating clauses, but not enough and not wide enough. These constraints do not, in any case, address the problem of sufficient and effective scrutiny.
We will come to proposals for dealing with the scrutiny problem when we reach the group beginning with Amendment 237 on Monday. These amendments will enable the House to debate how it might adapt our current SI scrutiny system so that we may deal effectively with the avalanche of SIs coming our way. There are at least three schemes for us to consider. But whatever system of scrutiny the House finally settles on, it should apply to all SIs generated by this Bill. The same system, whatever it turns out to be, should also apply to all other SIs, whatever their parent Act, if they are to be used for the purposes of maintaining a coherent and functioning statute book on withdrawal from the EU. It would be quite wrong, for example, to have a rigorous system of scrutiny of SIs generated by this Bill and a less rigorous system for SIs used for withdrawal purposes generated by existing Acts.
This is not a theoretical concern. We know that the Government intend to use SIs generated by existing Acts when they consider that to be appropriate, or perhaps even necessary. The Solicitor-General made it clear in his speech on day 2 of Committee in the House of Commons that that is what the Government would do. In response to that, Amendment 200 sets out to create a common minimum standard of scrutiny. It simply requires that, no matter their provenance, all SIs with the same withdrawal purposes should be subject to the scrutiny procedures we finally agree on SIs generated by this Bill. It does this by making the appropriate amendment to the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, and by specifying in language taken directly from this Bill what “withdrawal purposes” means.
In a brief conversation about this amendment with the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and his officials, they reminded me that this amendment could not bind future Acts. That had occurred to us. Any future Act could, of course, write its own rules for withdrawal SI scrutiny, or indeed for anything else. But, if that happened, the Government would have to explain to Parliament why one type of scrutiny was appropriate for SIs generated by the withdrawal Bill, with another for SIs with the same purpose generated by subsequent Bills. We should have one minimum standard of scrutiny for any withdrawal-purposed SI, and this amendment is aimed at doing exactly that. Whatever scrutiny standards we eventually adopt for SIs arising out of this Bill, they should be the minimum standard applying across all similarly purposed SIs, wherever they come from, and whatever their parent Act. I beg to move.

Lord Hope of Craighead: There is a good deal to be said for the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, when one bears in mind the power given in each of Clauses 7, 8 and 9 to make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament under regulations made under these clauses. Of course, one can look back to an existing Act, which could be amended by the exercise of this power, for a purpose related to the Brexit arrangements. If one takes an  existing Act—one can visualise all sorts of situations when that might arise—it would seem right that the same procedure should apply if the amendment is made for the purposes which one sees in Clauses 7, 8 and 9.
For future Acts I can see there is a problem, because one cannot control a future Parliament, but as far as the past is concerned I respectfully suggest that there is a lot to be said for the amendment.

Lord Beith: My Lords, I am sorry I missed the beginning of the speech of my noble friend Lord Sharkey as a result of unaccustomed speed breaking out on the Bill’s proceedings while I was having a cup of tea. Whether this will be repeated, I do not know.
I had discussions before with my noble friend to properly understand his amendment and its main aim, which is to embrace, within scrutiny procedures used for withdrawal Bill statutory instruments, all those statutory instruments for the same purpose that derive from other previous statutes. That is an interesting idea. When it comes to referring back to the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, it is worth recalling that the Act was surrounded by generous commitments, promises that prayers against negative instruments would always have time for debate on the Floor of the House and all sorts of undertakings that were completely unfulfilled in practice.
Whether the amendment can be made to work in precisely this form I am not quite sure, but I think that the purpose of ensuring that nothing is slipped through by anything less than at least the procedure of triage and scrutiny that we seek for statutory instruments under this Bill—if it becomes an Act—is extended to anything that does the same thing. We certainly would not want to create a perverse incentive for a Government to use the wrong legislation, or a different piece of legislation, for the statutory instrument simply because they could evade a form of scrutiny by doing so.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, for the reasons that have already been given, I also support this amendment.

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, that was even shorter than my speech. The Government have to accept that they have to come to some sort of accommodation on statutory instruments. We all know that a lot of them will be required, and we have got to have a good system that satisfies everybody, both in this and the other House. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, sensibly makes that task simpler by making it uniform across the Bill. I am very persuaded by his argument and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and I hope that the Government are as well.

Lord Callanan: My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for tabling this amendment so that we can have a discussion about this and for the extremely courteous discussion that he had on this matter with me and my officials.
Many of us here today are opposed, in general, to making sweeping fixes to the whole statute book through one Act. Indeed, that is the cause of many of the concerns about the powers in this Bill, and an issue  that the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, addresses with his amendment. I am therefore wary of inadvertently undermining the delicate and proportionate balances struck within other Acts between haste and scrutiny. The need to deal with the detail of how the Acts differ from one another is, however, what makes these Henry VIII powers necessary.
Nothing in this Bill directly changes the scope or functioning of other delegated powers. The exceptions that this Bill provides are that, within the context of and with the scrutiny attached to the original powers, they can be used to amend retained direct EU law. The Bill also clarifies that it lifts any implied EU-related restrictions from exit day, a necessary consequential step to our leaving the EU’s legal architecture. It is right and proper that, within their context and limits, other powers can be used for the same purposes as Clauses 7, 8 and 9. This amendment, if it is broadly constructed by the courts, could render moot any debate that this House has had or is having on scrutiny provisions in other Bills. This also extends to exit-related Bills and, in this field alone, this could catch the trade, sanctions and customs Bill.
It is I think best to let the sleeping dogs of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde lie, so I shall skate over the very concerning question of how financial privilege would apply under this amendment to the powers to correct deficiencies in the customs Bill.
I call noble Lords’ attention back to the crucial importance of the ability to exercise the powers in the sanctions Bill at speed and the additional information requirements added to that Bill. Even if parallel changes were to be made to this Bill, these would be tailored to the specifics of this Bill.
I stress the Government’s commitment to proper scrutiny of the powers under this Bill; they are a unique, time-limited solution to a unique problem. None of this, however, should be a reason to render irrelevant any specificities of scrutiny that this House has insisted on in other Acts. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Sharkey: As I listened to the noble Lord, I could not help thinking that we were talking entirely at cross purposes. The House has yet to decide on exactly what method of scrutiny we shall use and how we will amend existing methods—if we do at all—when we consider this Bill. That is not the issue for this evening; that is for Monday’s discussions.
This amendment simply says that whatever we decide is the appropriate method of scrutiny, all other SIs, no matter where they come from, should be subject to the same level and procedure of scrutiny. That is all it does. It does not interfere with anything else, or any workings of the parent Act, apart from the scrutiny procedure itself. It leaves the parent Act entirely untouched in every possible sense. The Minister is greatly overcomplicating what the situation will be. I accept that there may be cases with other Acts where the Government prefer not to have more rigorous scrutiny applied to the SIs generated by those Acts, but that is part of the point of tabling the amendment in the first place. I will withdraw it now, especially at this time of night, but I suspect we will return to this subject on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 200 withdrawn.
Amendments 201 to 203 not moved.

Amendment 204

Moved by The Earl of Clancarty
204: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—“Rights and opportunities of young peopleIt is an objective of the Government, in negotiating a withdrawal agreement, to ensure that the rights and opportunities of British citizens aged under 25 and resident in the United Kingdom are maintained on existing terms including—(a) retaining the ability to work and travel visa-free in the EU, and(b) retaining the ability to study in other EU member States, including through participation in the Erasmus+ programme on existing terms.”

Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, Amendment 204 seeks to maintain the rights of, and opportunities for, young people to continue to travel, work and study within Europe, and to ensure that those rights are not diminished. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall of Blaisdon and Lady Humphreys, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd. One of the reasons I tabled this amendment is that so little has been said about the effect of Brexit on young people’s opportunities, either by the Government or in debate. Young people are the future of this country, yet their future is being almost entirely ignored.
My fear is that, far from the country getting a deal that includes young people, they will become the collateral damage of a hard Brexit, because it is they who will be affected by Brexit more than anyone else. There are various reasons for this, and I will come on to why I believe this is the case. At present we are all treated equally within the EU, young people included. The right to free movement is entirely democratic—but the introduction of any kind of visa system or work permits will change this, as a visa system is by definition a class system. Celebrities, the rich and the lucky will be waved through airports, and established professionals will have a harder time of it, but those at the bottom of the pile will be the young, who are starting out on their careers and who wish to explore other countries and cultures and expand their horizons through work and/or study abroad—the very people for whom free movement within Europe means the most. This includes young people from poorer backgrounds, for whom a flight within Europe is more realistic than one further afield. Those who voted leave surely did not do so to create new hierarchies, new elites.
Some people have expressed the view in this House that things will not be so bad, and that we are worrying about this too much, unless someone is going to work in Europe. However, we cannot take work out of the equation. For many young people, travel and work are inextricably bound up. They are part of the same thing—that experience of exploring their own continent. This is true for the working class and the less well-off, who may need to find work out there to pay for their stay. Thousands of Britons work across Europe in all  kinds of temporary jobs—as couriers, doing maintenance work, as waiters, working in bars and much else—in addition, of course, to the permanent jobs young people may be offered, very possibly as the result of an extended stay.
If young people lose these rights, not only will they lose this essential flexibility of travel, they will also be subjected to a double whammy, because every young person who is a citizen of any EEA country, as they will retain these rights and opportunities to a considerable extent, will have an immediate and substantial advantage over young British people in obtaining work abroad, whether permanent or temporary. I have heard recently of someone whose parents we know: a working-class 20 year-old boy who has been told not even to bother to apply for a job in in the kitchens of a top hotel in Paris, because of the uncertainties of Brexit. The effect of Brexit on young people is already happening.
As I have said, it is not true that only the young middle classes make use of the EU. It is worth reiterating the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, in Committee on 26 February, about our relative lack of international student mobility within Europe, particularly among young people from less advantaged groups. But if we start to shut down all opportunities for everyone, including Erasmus+, young people from less privileged backgrounds will again be hurt most, and most immediately, as it will become more difficult for them in particular to take advantage of a system with more restrictions, increased costs and greater bureaucracy in both work and study opportunities, if those opportunities even exist then. We must surely make greater headway in the other direction. I will not say very much about Erasmus+ as we have had a very full debate on this topic. However, in our debate on Erasmus+ in Committee, the Minister said he would reflect on what was said. Has he been able to reflect on that further in the last couple of weeks?
The goal of intercultural skills, which Erasmus+ holds dear, is surely an effect, at its best, of not just study but travel and work abroad as well, with the contact that young people make with others. This is hugely important culturally and has, of course, educational and commercial implications in the exchange of ideas as young people bring those experiences back from Europe. Encouraging young people to go abroad in Europe is good for the country.
Finally, it is worth reminding ourselves that the Ipsos MORI analysis of the results of the referendum estimated that for 18 to 34 year-olds the remain vote beat the leave vote significantly in every class of society. It seems clear that most young people from whatever class feel European in a way that many older people do not. This is not then just about being young and wishing to explore beyond one’s own country; it is a break between generations and, in that sense alone, to deny these rights is culturally a huge backward step.
This amendment sets down the red lines that many young people would not want to see crossed, and I hope the Government will accept it. I beg to move.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I warmly endorse this amendment to which I have put my name. The feeling of dismay and disappointment among young people is hard to overestimate and has been put to me very  forcefully. The Government keep saying that we are going to be an international nation whatever happens on Brexit, and that they put our international participation at the forefront of their considerations. It seems to me a very strange way to start if we in any way foreshorten the much appreciated opportunity to enjoy travel, study and the rest abroad, and to bring that experience back to Britain.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, I support this amendment. My eldest grandson is about to leave university. He is incandescent with anger that he is about to be deprived of the right to look for a job anywhere across Europe when he leaves university. He is typical of a large number of young people coming out of university, colleges of further education and school who want the opportunity to travel, and, as my noble friend Lord Clancarty has suggested, the opportunity to do something outside their own country, to move away. However, that is something they are in real danger of losing with this change that we are about to have. The Government must really listen to these young people.

Lord Robathan: My Lords, I regret to say that I shall introduce a bit of controversy into the proceedings at 22.38 in the evening. It is insulting to suggest that those of us who believe that our future will be better outside the European Union—at 66, I’m all right, Jack; I think about the young, not myself—wish to curtail the rights of young people. I say to the noble Earl that I am European and I feel European; I just do not wish to be part of the European Union.
Let us look at this issue in detail rather than at what the noble Earl has said. We all agree that everybody should have opportunities to go to Europe and elsewhere. I have a niece studying in Canada, which is not, as far as I am aware, a part of the European Union. I have another niece studying in Australia, which is not, as far as I am aware, a part of the European Union. I understand that the Erasmus programme covers a great many countries that are not in the European Union, so it has absolutely nothing to do with the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. The noble Earl is only a year younger than me; I have just looked that up. Surely he remembers that people were able to study in Europe before we were in the European Union. They did, and people from Europe came and studied with me at university. There was no bar. The only bar that the noble Earl talks about is the situation he mentioned of somebody in Paris stopping somebody else from going to work in Paris. It is not up to us; it is up to them.

Lord Adonis: Why does the noble Lord think, then, that young people are so overwhelmingly in favour of staying in the European Union?

Lord Robathan: Because they are by nature conservative, of course, and that is what it was: no change, like the noble Lord.
How can we not diminish, as the amendment says, the rights of young people to study in Europe? We want them to go and study. It is up to our friends, neighbours and allies in Europe to let them come, as we will let their people come to our country—not  least, it has to be said, because foreign students pay a lot of fees to our universities. I am not going to detain the House for the half hour that I probably have in me, but I think that this amendment makes those of us who do not agree with it feel pretty insulted by the suggestion that we wish to curtail the rights of our children and grandchildren.

Lord Liddle: The referendum was won on the basis of controlling immigration by using posters that had 5 million Turks about to enter Britain. People who support Brexit have the gall to say that we are all in favour of people coming to Britain. That is the basis on which the referendum was won. Brexit is withdrawing the fundamental rights of EU citizenship, rights which are in the treaties. We have these rights because we are a member of the European Union. It is the treaties that give young people the right to work, study and travel without let or hindrance anywhere within the European Union. People on the Benches opposite are responsible for taking those rights away.

Baroness Humphreys: I support this amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to which I have added my name. I thank the noble Earl for tabling such an important amendment and introducing it in such a clear and precise manner.
History is littered with battles to achieve basic rights, and each hard-earned right is seen as an advancement—a sign of progress and enlightenment—as we move forward as civilised nations. Attempts to rescind our rights would and should be met with outrage, and no self-respecting Government would normally attempt such a backward step. So it is in the case of EU citizenship. UK citizens have had, since 1993, the same rights, freedoms and legal protections as every citizen of the EU and, although these are rights that have been bestowed upon us, they are rights that very many of us have embraced and valued. It seems unthinkable that the Government, egged on by the 37% of our population who voted to leave, are happy to see those rights removed.
It is those of us who remain living in the UK who will lose the most. We will lose all the rights that we have held as EU citizens, and it is young people who will feel that loss more than any other group. For those under 25, their EU citizenship is a birthright: they have known nothing else. Many young people in Wales consider themselves to be Welsh, British and European and wear those three identities comfortably, as do their English, Scottish and Irish counterparts. They have embraced the rights to live, work and love in the EU. They have grabbed the opportunity to obtain an international education and have studied at universities throughout the EU, advancing their language skills to enable them to work in an international sphere, and they have travelled freely throughout the Union. These young people voted far more strongly against Brexit than their older counterparts and they are the people who will have to live with the consequences of the votes of the older generation.
It is thought that 74% of under-25s voted to remain, but when will the Government acknowledge how strongly they feel? When will they listen to the voices of the young?
Of course, young people could, like me, examine ways of retaining their EU citizenship. How much easier it all would have been if my great-grandparents had stayed in Donaghadee a little while longer, until my grandfather had been born there, paving the way for me to apply for Irish citizenship. Like me, young people might rule out other possible qualifying conditions: a marriage to an EU citizen from another member state, setting up a business under Estonia’s e-residency programme, or paying out £2 million to Cyprus to become a Cypriot citizen—and therefore an EU citizen—without actually having to live there. A period of study in another EU country might do the trick, but that becomes more difficult without Erasmus. The EU has suggested the introduction of associate membership, perhaps at a cost, for those who want it. What is the Government’s response to that?
It is heartwarming to see, however, that young people are now taking their future into their own hands, and I am pleased to see the establishment of a group called Our Future, Our Choice, which describes itself as,
“a group of angry, determined young people who think Brexit is a disaster and should be stopped”.
This group speaks to and for those under 45.

Lord Robathan: Does the noble Baroness think that the same people who formed this group were the same angry people who painted obscenities in Whitehall—about something they wished to do to Clegg—in 2010, against the Liberal Democrats?

Baroness Humphreys: I do not think so, because this new group has just been formed in the last couple of months or perhaps a little longer.
This group bypasses traditional media outlets because they know that these are increasingly irrelevant to young people, who only access the news items that interest them via social media. Their media posting today uses cartoons to combine a serious message with humour and it is aimed at the Labour leader this time. Entitled “Dear Jeremy Corbyn”, it reminds him that “the young people have supported you, they need you to support them”. This non-politically aligned group has realised that the co-operation of all people who hold the same opinions as they do is essential.
As ever, matters to do with the European Union come down to the personal and emotional. For the last 25 years, I and my compatriots have been proud to call ourselves Welsh, British and European. Our EU citizenship has given us the right to travel unhindered throughout Europe and has seen us accepted in every European country we visited. In Europe, we are citizens of everywhere, and we resent the fact that this right is being taken away from us and that future generations will not have the benefits of EU citizenship that we have enjoyed.

Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, the noble Lord should be rather careful about drawing comparisons between the EU as a place to travel and to work in, and Australia and Canada. My son studied in Canada, where there is a strict visa system for students: you have to leave as soon as you have finished your course,  and he had to be very careful to get himself out of the country before his permission ran out. You need a visa even to visit Australia, and I suspect that it also has rules for visas if you have to work there. Of course people go there, and that visa system is comparatively relaxed, but it is not the same as the freedom we have in the EU.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, if I may take over from where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, left off, of course even the access we have to Australia is hugely facilitated by the fact that it is a former colony which has the same language and so many practices which are familiar to Brits, and is therefore a comparatively easy and familiar place to travel. It does not at all make the argument that somehow divorcing ourselves from the continent will enlarge opportunities for young people. However, I am a natural optimist—indeed, one could hardly be otherwise in the hours we are all investing in seeking to improve the Bill. Some good things are coming out of the Brexit process; actually, the whole thing might stop as a result of them.
The noble Baroness is completely right that one thing that is happening is the massive engagement by young people in politics and the political process. That did not take place before. We had all bought into the idea that the young were not voting or taking an interest in the future, and that politics was decided by the elderly. We had the triple lock on pensions at the same time as we were trebling tuition fees. Those two policies, more than anything else, symbolise the political centre of gravity in the last 10 years—students were expected to pay more and more of the burden of university education while the retired got a better and better deal. That is all changing now. The young are voting and are engaged as never before. They voted in the last general election in numbers which we have not seen for a generation. It is very clear to me that if we move, as I think is increasingly likely, towards a referendum on the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal, then either in that referendum or whenever a general election comes we will see very high levels of engagement by the young. I think it is now very likely that that will include votes for 16 and 17 year-olds—there is probably a majority in the House of Commons for that now. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, who is a natural conservative, will be fiercely opposed to that.

Lord Robathan: The noble Lord has tempted me. As it happens, I am. So is my 18 year-old daughter. She has just turned 18 and says it would have been absurd to give her a vote at 16 or 17 when she did not know anything about things.

Lord Adonis: If knowing anything about issues was a criteria for voting, we would need the noble Lord sitting in the judgment of Solomon over every member of the electorate to decide whether they qualified for the franchise. Being a conservative, he would probably approve of that, but we tend to have more objective criteria.
What we need in this country is to get young people more systematically engaged. A number of members of the noble Lord’s party in the House of Commons, including two former Secretaries of State for Education, are now in favour of votes for 16 and 17 year-olds, and  there appears to be a majority in the House of Commons. I very much hope—and this could be the ultimate irony of Brexit—that the first time that 16 and 17 year-olds get to vote in a poll in this country is in a Brexit referendum held early next year, where they make the decisive difference in the decision this country will take to stay in the European Union. If so, the noble Earl’s great ambitions may be realised to an even greater and more positive extent than he may realise.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I should welcome the long-term political suicide of the party opposite in its failure to embrace the wishes and ambitions of young people, but the tragedy is that those young people will be most affected by its approach to Europe and to Brexit. This approach seems to be driven by some wistful look back at this country’s imperial past. It is interesting that the noble Lord referred to Australia and Canada, because that seems to be the basis of the party opposite’s approach to negotiations—we will pass up the market that is on our doorstep for the sake of some ludicrous imperialistic notion. How many times do we hear members of the party opposite refer to Australia, New Zealand and Canada in the media when push comes to shove as to where they are going to get these mystical trade agreements?

Lord Robathan: Much as I like all three countries that the noble Lord just referred to, the facts are that I have a niece studying in Australia and another in Canada. Sadly, I have none studying in France or Germany at the moment.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I rejoice in the success of the noble Lord’s family, though I do not think it takes away the point.

Lord Robathan: It takes away the noble Lord’s point.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I do not think so. The point I am making is that the party opposite’s visceral hatred of the EU and its obsession with past glories is taking us down a path which will have a hugely negative impact on many young people.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, moved this amendment to see whether the Minister has been able to reflect on our earlier debate. Perhaps I may take him back to the debate about the Erasmus programme on 26 February. The Minister may well recollect that he made some encouraging noises about the value that the Government place on that programme. He then went on to say that,
“no decisions have yet been made about post-2020 programme participation as the scope of that programme has not been agreed”.—[Official Report, 26/2/18; col. 478.]
If only the Minister would go a little further and say that it is the Government’s intention that this country will participate in the post-2020 Erasmus programme, that would give some grounds for optimism among young people who need to make a decision very soon about applying for the programme because it will take them past 2020. He would do them a great favour were he to do so.

Lord Callanan: My Lords, in addressing Amendment 204 moved by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, at the risk of repeating myself I remind the Committee yet again that the purpose of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is to provide a functioning statute book on the day we leave the EU, whatever the outcome of the negotiations. It is our intention that the planned withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill will implement the major elements of the withdrawal agreement, including giving effect to the agreement on citizens’ rights.
The amendment appears to seek to make it an objective of the Government to achieve a particular outcome in the negotiations on our future relationship with the EU and so to tie the Government’s hands on these issues. The amendment is focused on the withdrawal agreement, but these matters are for the future relationship with the EU, which this Bill does not seek to address.
After we leave the European Union, there will continue to be migration and mobility between the EU and the UK. We have proposed a time-limited implementation period based on the current structure of rules and regulations. This means that UK nationals may continue to have the same rights as EU nationals, such as the right to move and reside freely.
Looking to the future, UK citizens will still want to work and study in EU countries, just as EU citizens will want to do here, helping to shape and drive growth, innovation and enterprise. Indeed, businesses across the EU and the UK must be able to attract and employ the people they need. That is why, in our science and innovation policy paper published in September, we said that we will discuss with the EU future arrangements to facilitate the mobility of researchers, academics and students engaged in cross-border collaboration. We are open to discussing how to facilitate these valuable links.
Of course, we recognise the value of international exchange and collaboration, through both study and work placements abroad, in increasing people’s language skills and cultural awareness as part of our vision for the UK as a global nation. We will continue to take part in those specific policies and programmes which are greatly to the joint advantage of the UK and the EU, such as those that promote science, education and culture.
I repeat for the benefit of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, what I said in the debate on Erasmus, although I forget exactly when it was—sometime in the past. No decisions on UK participation in the successor Erasmus+ programme after 2020 have yet been taken for the simple reason that the scope of the future programme has not yet been agreed. The noble Lord is asking me to give him an assurance that we will take part in a programme about whose composition we have no idea. No Government could agree to do that. We will take a decision when we see what the successor programme is. UK participation will form part of the negotiations about our future relationship with the EU. There may be some specific European programmes that we want to continue to participate in as we leave the EU, and that will be considered as part of the negotiations.
Whatever the outcome of those negotiations, including the increasingly unlikely scenario in which we leave the EU without a deal—

Baroness Butler-Sloss: If the noble Lord will forgive me, will the Government continue to take into account the importance of young people’s desire to be able to work freely and move freely through Europe?

Lord Callanan: Of course we will take into account the wishes of young people to move freely, just as we will take into account the wishes of older people to move freely.
We will underwrite successful bids for Erasmus+ submitted while the UK is still a member state, even if payments continue beyond the point of exit. Therefore, applications for funding from UK institutions should continue, and are continuing, as normal.
The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, asked me again, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has done in the past, about the issue of associate EU citizenships. Let me make the point to the Liberal Democrats once again—it seems to have difficulty permeating through to them—that the EU treaty provisions state that only citizens of EU member states are able to hold EU citizenship. Therefore, when the UK ceases to be a member of the European Union, British nationals will no longer hold EU citizenship unless they hold dual nationality with another EU member state.
For those reasons, I hope the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.

Earl of Clancarty: I thank the Minister for that reply, which I interpret to mean he is still reflecting. This has been a good debate, even at this late hour, and I am grateful to everyone who has participated and for the support the amendment has found. Yes, some young people travelled and studied abroad before we joined the EU, but they were mostly people who could afford to do so. Restrictions put people off. If we shut our young people, our students, out of our own continent, this is not global Britain but parochial Britain.
As it is getting late, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 204 withdrawn.
Amendments 205 to 207 not moved.

Amendment 208

Moved by Lord Dubs
208: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—“Maintenance of refugee family reunion rights within Europe(1) A Minister of the Crown must make appropriate arrangements with the aim of preserving specified effects in the United Kingdom of Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 (the “Dublin Regulation”), including through negotiation with the EU.(2) “Specified effects” under subsection (1) are those provisions, and associated rights and obligations, that allow for unaccompanied minors and adults to join a family member in the United Kingdom before making an application for asylum.   (3) Within six months of the passing of this Act, and then every six months thereafter, a Minister of the Crown must report to Parliament on progress made in negotiations to secure the continuation of reciprocal arrangements between the United Kingdom and member States as they relate to subsection (1).”

Lord Dubs: My Lords, there are at present two legal paths for unaccompanied child refugees in Europe to come to this country. Clearly there are people traffickers who exploit the situation reprehensibly but that is for another day.
One legal path is under Section 67 of the Immigration Act, an amendment I moved that was passed by this House, accepted by the Government and became part of the Act. The other legal path is what we have called for short Dublin III. That is, under an EU-wide treaty it has been possible for unaccompanied children in one EU country to join relatives in another. For example, a Syrian boy in France could join an uncle in Stockholm. This amendment seeks the continuation of the rights and entitlements that at the moment come under Dublin III.
Under the existing paths that I have mentioned, we have to date, under Section 67, let some 250 unaccompanied children into this country. The Government say that they will put a stop to it when the figure reaches 480. However, that is a subject for debate on another day. Under the Dublin III provisions, something like 800 unaccompanied child refugees have arrived in this country, mainly over the past two years. The majority have come from France, mainly from the Calais area, but not exclusively so.
The numbers in Europe continue to increase. At the moment it is estimated that over 3,000 unaccompanied children are registered in Greece, a third of whom are in shelters. That means that at least 2,000 children, mainly on the islands, are sleeping rough without any proper accommodation or facilities. Secondly, although the Jungle in northern France has been removed, some of the young people who were there before have worked their way back to northern France and several hundred are sleeping in the woods, under the trees, near where the Jungle used to be, in difficult conditions. Quite a few are scattered around Italy as well.
The amendments seek to ensure that Brexit does not result in the closing down of that safe and legal route for unaccompanied children, and some adults, to seek asylum in this country by joining their families. It is simply a matter of keeping the existing methods going. It is not a big thing to ask and it is fairly straightforward. The Government have hinted that they might consider this but we want that hint to become clear.
The Dublin III provisions allow family members and dependants to join family in Britain. Some of those dependants might be, for example, spouses who became separated in the course of their journey and want to join their partner, if that is appropriate, in this country or another EU country. However, much of the argument has been about unaccompanied children; that is, those under the age of 18. By having this significant and legal route, we have provided safety. As I say, quite a lot of Dublin III-eligible children are waiting to be able to come to this country, but the concern is that that might be stopped as a result of Brexit.
Something quite good happened when in January this year the Prime Minister met President Macron of France. Although the policy did not change, there has been an impetus to speed up the process. We have been told that that is the result of the Sandhurst treaty or meeting, and I hope that impetus will continue, but I have not seen many signs of it; things are moving rather slowly.
In moving this amendment, I have been careful, with the help of friends and NGOs, to ensure that we are asking for something pretty straightforward. We are asking that this issue should be negotiated. Clearly, for the Dublin III provisions to work, bilateral arrangements are required between us and the country from which many of these young people come. If we do it unilaterally, there will be no obligation on, say, the French authorities to verify who is eligible under the Dublin III provisions, so it has to be done on a reciprocal basis. It is something that has to be negotiated, which is why it is appropriate for it to form part of this Bill.
All we are asking for is that the process should be negotiated, with a commitment on the part of the Government to do so. That is perfectly reasonable. It is a matter of continuing the process that we have already and of giving some rights, particularly to the young people who come here, while of course the rights of young people in other European countries will continue as before. It is a fairly reasonable proposition and I hope the Government will be sympathetic to it. I beg to move.

Amendment 208A (to Amendment 208)

Moved by Lord Dubs
208A: After Clause 9, in subsection (2), leave out “before making an application for asylum”

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I should explain that this amendment to my Amendment 208 is a technicality. I have been told that there is a slight flaw in the original amendment, so I have deleted four words. I have decided that this is the way it should be done. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I rise to support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Dubs, the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. These are important amendments that, frankly, should not be left to be considered at the fag end of a long day. I hope that when we come to the Report stage of the Bill, they will be debated in a rather fuller House than is the case this evening.
In essence, as my noble friend Lord Dubs has said, the amendments seek to preserve the position established by him during the discussions on the last Immigration Act and as a product of Dublin III. Since 2015, some 811 unaccompanied children have been successfully reunited with family in Britain under the Dublin III arrangements, while a further 250 have been transferred under Section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016. These are not big numbers and it frankly shames our country that we have failed to provide help and support for children fleeing war zones and civil war, but at least they represent a level of intervention that we can  recognise as the beginning of a humanitarian programme of aid and support. It would be my wish to see our country go further.
In 2015, more than 1 million people arrived in Europe seeking refuge. It is estimated that 90,000 of them were unaccompanied children. The fact that we have taken just over 1,000 I find frankly lamentable. However, I recognise that we need to be realistic in the current situation and those of us committed to helping refugees, particularly child refugees, want at least to ensure that in a post-Brexit Britain we keep alive the important gains we have made to date. As my noble friend Lord Dubs has argued, these amendments go no further than ensuring that the UK Government do not close down safe and legal routes for unaccompanied children and adults seeking asylum to join family and receive protection.
I am not as experienced in arguing the case for refugees as my noble friend Lord Dubs, but I have had some personal experience of dealing with the fallout for refugees through the Refugees at Home charity, which seeks to place refugees with families. For some six months, my wife and I had a young woman called Riam staying with us while she sorted out her asylum status and began to rebuild her life. In talking to her extensively during that time, I gained a picture of how it must feel for many thousands of refugees across Europe who need help and support. Her family were originally from Aleppo. They fled the violence and moved to a city that they thought was safer. She, her sister and her brother eventually escaped the Syrian conflict, leaving her mother and father behind. Now, the family communicate by phone and, occasionally, by Skype. Her brother and sister are in different cities in different European states. This family faces the prospect of never being able to see each other again and enjoying the normal things that families do.
I know that Riam worries endlessly about her parents’ welfare. She once told me that ISIS—and loyal and rebel forces—had made it to the outskirts of her parents’ city and were engaged in fighting. She was terrified by that prospect. I cannot imagine how she must feel daily: estranged, thousands of miles away from her family, who are scattered across Europe and the Middle East, with a sense of loss and not belonging always present in her mind. She is a gifted woman with most of her life ahead of her; she now works here in the UK.
If these amendments are agreed—as they should be, given previous amendments—we can at least make a contribution to helping some of the most vulnerable young people in Europe with a safe passage and some optimism. For the longer term, we need an EU-wide agreement that ensures we shoulder a fair share of the international refugee crisis. My fear is that post-Brexit Britain will turn its back on an issue where we need common and binding institutions to bring countries together to help. I want to hear from the Minister that we will at least retain a common commitment, and I want some reassurances that we will work together across the EU 27—whatever the outcome of the negotiations—to secure fair and humanitarian outcomes in the future, especially for young people and vulnerable refugees. It gives me great pleasure to  support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I hope that this House will eventually agree to it at a later stage.

Baroness Sheehan: My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. My purpose in adding my name to it is quite simple. If Brexit happens, I want to preserve one of the few safe and legal routes open to unaccompanied children seeking asylum.
Although the Jungle camp in Calais was demolished in October 2016, thousands of asylum seekers remain destitute in France and other parts of Europe. Many children are among them. Dublin III presents a safe and legal route through which a process can be put in place that will allow them to be reunited with parents, uncles, aunts, siblings or grandparents who, in some cases, may themselves be seeking asylum. That is the crux of the matter: it does not take a psychologist to tell us that the separation of children from their families has a detrimental impact on their emotional well-being and physical and moral development. If Dublin III were not to be transferred into UK law post Brexit, an orphan in Europe could no longer be reunited with other close members of his or her family.
A week and a half ago, I was back in Calais to catch up with developments there and lend support to the work that Help Refugees does there. The young volunteers there—many of them British—were working flat out during the bitterly cold spell we have recently experienced. Many of the asylum seekers there are still trying to cross the border illegally, which often means taking their life in their hands. Five children have died over the last two years in the attempt, but for some, there is the hope that legal help provided by organisations such as Safe Passage will secure for them a safe and legal route to the UK so that they can be reunited with a family member or relative here. Without a functioning equivalent of Dublin III, children will continue to congregate in Calais, taking desperate and life-threatening steps to reach their families. I hope that, as a nation open and welcoming to refugees in the past and with a proud history of doing so, we can continue doing it and keep our heads held high on the global stage.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, spoke powerfully about a particular girl from Syria but she is typical of children across Europe. I went to Calais in May with Fiona Mactaggart, then an MP, and we wrote a report about the situation in Calais and Dunkirk, but it is also true in Italy and in Greece. Of those children who have come across Europe without their families, there is a group who have rights under EU law. Those are the children who can apply under what is known as Dublin III. This amendment asks that the relatively small number of children who have actually succeeded in coming to this country should not be cut off when Brexit occurs. I accept Brexit, but what I ask, along with fellow Members who have put their names to this amendment, is that the Minister who answers on behalf of the Government recognises that Brexit should not prevent the existing rights of children. It is not just a moral issue; it is a legal issue:  they currently have rights and it would in my view be shocking if those rights were got rid of because we leave the EU.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, at this very late hour I say that I agree with everything that other noble Lords have said and add that our record has not been what it should be in implementing our obligations regarding this most deserving of humanitarian problems. We should improve it, not curtail it, so I support these very moderate amendments.

Baroness Stroud: My Lords, I rise to speak to this amendment, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Our exit from the European Union presents us with a unique opportunity to define, in our own terms, the country we want to be. This nation is and always has been generous and open-minded towards refugees and has offered a home in times of trouble. From the Huguenots to the Belgians and Jewish refugees, we have a strong tradition of welcoming those who seek shelter. As a child, I can remember my own mother working as a nurse to welcome the Ugandan Asian refugees, and then later the Vietnamese boat people. This seemed only natural to me, given that my own father had been evacuated as a child to Canada during the war. This tradition is something which I hope, regardless of one’s views on Brexit or the European Union, we can all agree on.
In the period January 2016 to September 2017, the UK welcomed a total of 9,897 refugees, approximately half of whom were female and half were children. We can and we should do more, and we should seek to keep open and available every channel by which people are able to safely seek asylum. Dublin III is one of the ways in which respect for family life and unaccompanied minors’ best interests are kept at the heart of the asylum process. For some 300,000 unaccompanied child refugees, the risks of trafficking and forced prostitution or forced labour are extremely high. We know that in the Mediterranean, more than 75% of the 1,600 14 to 16 year-olds arriving in Italy reported being held against their will or forced to work. This staggering statistic is absolutely why we should be working to ensure that there are accessible, legal routes such as Dublin III, which allow children to apply for asylum safely from the country they are in, and not be forced to take dangerous journeys to join their families.
For children and adults fleeing conflict, the best place for them to be is with family members. This offers the best possible chance for them to thrive and rebuild their lives post trauma. The co-operation that Dublin III offers aids this but, as we all know, the Dublin conventions are only a small part of the story, and while the co-operation should remain, it is one strand of a much wider issue.
From the Calais operation, just 29 of the 769 children who were transferred to the UK came from the Dublin regulation route, and in 2016 just 355 people were transferred under this route. To date, the UK has taken in 10,538 refugees from Syria—just over half of the number we committed to resettle by 2020. We have so far welcomed around 220 children under Section 67 of the Immigration Act, which my noble friend Lord Dubs fought so hard to obtain: less  than 1/10th of the original number committed to. Going forward, is this the sort of country we want  to be?
Brexit is an opportunity to re-evaluate our priorities as a country and refocus on the country we want to be. Being an open nation with a generous welcome for those in need of our shelter should be a key part of that. I understand the limitations of Dublin III. But I call on my noble friend the Minister to clarify and confirm in this Committee that, post March 2019, the Government’s new and independent approach to refugees would guarantee that those who benefited under the old system would still benefit under the new, and that no restriction would be put in place preventing those in need from being reunited with their families.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, for that speech—not just for the speech but because it was the voice of compassionate, socially engaged conservatism, which I have always respected. May that tradition in the Conservative Party reassert itself. It is desperately needed at this juncture in our history. What the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said about the legal situation was also a powerful argument, which the Government must answer. Are we going to strip what have been legal rights away?
In the context of this Bill, we debate from time to time what sort of Britain we want to be, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, was absolutely right. I share completely her view about the sort of Britain we should be. I want us to be a Britain in which the world sees “Compassion” in capital letters in all our approach to public affairs. We seem to have lost that and I want to see it reasserted. I thank my noble friend Lord Dubs for having moved this amendment. His consistent and tireless work on this issue challenges us all. If we talk about family and its importance in society, this is an issue which we can no longer prevaricate about.

Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, was absolutely right to say that respect for family life lies at the heart of this matter. That in particular was the basis for the regulation we are looking at, Dublin III, and this provision, which is talking about those unaccompanied adults and children from outside who wish to join a family member who is already here in order to make the application. It is about respect for family life as well as seeking to give the benefit of the asylum application under the convention, to which we are, after all, already parties. So without elaborating and with great respect to what has been said by everyone who has spoken so far, I too support the amendment.

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, it is a great shame that there is not more of a consensus between the two—or three—parties on the issue of refugees. We have debated it much over the years. Recently, we have got to what I would loosely call an uneasy peace, which is essentially based on my noble friend Lord Dubs’s Section 67 and Dublin III. That has produced modest numbers, but there are very real numbers of people meeting very real problems.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, put her finger on it. The rights individuals have as a result of Dublin III must be maintained. I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that the Government will either accept these amendments or make a very firm commitment to assure us that, one way or another, the effect of Dublin III will be maintained after Brexit.

Lord Duncan of Springbank: I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this evening’s debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I think the word “noble” is appropriate in so many different ways in the manner that we have been discussing this matter this evening.
It is a number of years since I worked for the Scottish Refugee Council. At that time, I was struck by a number of challenges experienced by those fleeing and seeking refuge across the globe. I was very much aware of the challenges experienced by refugees and asylum seekers; I draw a distinction between the two, as does the law. My frustrations were also manifest as a Member of the European Parliament at how the Dublin regulations were discussed, ultimately moved towards law and, frankly, not enforced in the manner in which I believe they should have been across the EU. While we often look towards Brussels for leadership in these areas, quite often we are disappointed by what happens when we move from the high words which can be found in certain of the discussions towards the realities of delivery, which can be quite different.
I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Stroud, who has again helped us realise some of the realities which we face. She is right to point out one of the greater challenges, which is finding unaccompanied minors in a difficult situation which they have not chosen to be in.
I turn specifically to the amendment. Noble Lords will be pleased that my noble friend Lady Williams is in her place beside me. I believe that on a number of occasions she has affirmed the Government’s commitment to ongoing support for those who are seeking asylum or who fall under the refugee convention. However, we must remember that the Dublin regulation is not, and never has been, a route for family reunification. It is a mechanism to determine the member state responsible for consideration of an asylum claim. Dublin confers no long-term right to remain in an EU state, whether on the grounds of family relationship or on any other basis. If someone is transferred under Dublin to the UK to join an asylum-seeking family member, should that asylum claim fail, they can be removed to their home country. In the UK, around 60% of those who claim asylum are found not to need protection.
The Dublin regulation rules are fundamentally different from the family reunion procedure in the Immigration Rules, which allows refugees under the Geneva convention, or recipients of humanitarian protection, to bring their close family members to the UK, where they are entitled to leave to remain. Furthermore, the Dublin regulation does not create refugee family reunion rights because it deals with asylum seekers, not refugees. Once a person is recognised as a refugee in the EU, they are no longer in scope of the Dublin system and the family unity provisions in the regulation do not apply.
More broadly—this is perhaps worth stressing as we consider movement outside the EU—the system has reciprocal effect in all participating states. It is a two-way process which governs the movement of asylum seekers into and out of the UK. Unilateral rules that place an obligation on only one state do not work. They need to be reciprocal.
Going forward, we seek a relationship with the EU that will address the entire spectrum, not just asylum seekers but refugees and the wider question of illegal migration, not solely on the basis of family reunion. A relationship with the EU on this matter above all will be how we are judged, and I note the noble Lord, Lord Judd, noting that point. We will be judged on this, and we need to get this right. However, I stress that the EU also needs to get this right and, if I may be so bold and so frank, I do not believe that the EU has got this right either. It is seeking to find that solution and, for as long as we are a member, we will be part of that struggle. At the moment, there is no easy way forward, as the EU is finding and as I do not doubt we will find.
However, as long as we are guided by the noble intentions of individuals such as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I believe we will be moving in the right direction. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw the amendments.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am very grateful for the first half of what the Minister said, but slightly less certain about the second half. I wish he had continued as he started. I want to consider his speech when we are all wider awake and in a calmer moment, but the fact is that the Dublin III mechanism is still a way in which unaccompanied children have been able to come to this country and join relatives. That has been a route for them, and more than 800 have come by those means—many from France, but also from Greece.  Whatever the technical argument, it has been a positive right and a positive way to safety for some of these young people.
I appreciate what the Minister said about this needing to be reciprocal. Indeed, the wording of the amendment aims to achieve precisely that. It talks about our negotiating on that basis; it has to be reciprocal. I fully understand that otherwise it will not work, because if the French authorities are not interested, they will not identify young people in France who might be entitled to come by that path.
I also agree that the EU has a lot of improvement to go in for. I would like to see, as my noble friend Lord Bassam said, an EU-wide or Europe-wide policy whereby we get near to common standards on behalf of refugees. That would be more sensible, and Dublin III is part of that, although only a small part.
I thank the Minister again for the first half of his speech. I did not know he had been involved with the Scottish Refugee Council. Good for him, although the effect did not last long. That is a bit churlish of me. I did not mean to be so churlish; I appreciate anybody who worked with it. I used to work for the Refugee Council in London, so I know about the good work the Scottish Refugee Council did. I want to think about this and we will have to look at the best way of moving forward on Report. I am grateful to all noble Lords who were so supportive of this amendment and beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment 208A (to Amendment 208) withdrawn.
Amendment 208 withdrawn.
Amendments 209 to 213 not moved.
House resumed.
House adjourned at 11.33 pm.